Bioethics 30 (5):304-311 (2016)

Authors
John Beverley
University at Buffalo
Abstract
Do biological relations ground responsibilities between biological fathers and their offspring? Few think biological relations ground either necessary or sufficient conditions for responsibility. Nevertheless, many think biological relations ground responsibility at least partially. Various scenarios, such as cases concerning the responsibilities of sperm donors, have been used to argue in favor of biological relations as partially grounding responsibilities. In this article, I seek to undermine the temptation to explain sperm donor scenarios via biological relations by appealing to an overlooked feature of such scenarios. More specifically, I argue that sperm donor scenarios may be better explained by considering the unique abilities of agents involved. Appealing to unique ability does not eliminate the possibility of biological relations providing some explanation for perceived responsibilities on the part of biological fathers. However, since it is unclear exactly why biological relations are supposed to ground responsibility in the first place, and rather clear why unique ability grounds responsibility in those scenarios where it is exhibited, the burden of proof seems shifted to those advocating biological relations as grounds of responsibility to provide an explanation. Since this seems unlikely, I conclude it is best to avoid appealing to biological relations as providing grounds for responsibility
Keywords biological relations  parental obligation  sperm donation
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1111/bioe.12213
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

 PhilArchive page | Other versions
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Biological Ties and Biological Accounts of Moral Status.Jake Monaghan - 2019 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 44 (3):355-377.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

The Moral Complexity of Sperm Donation.Rivka Weinberg - 2008 - Bioethics 22 (3):166–178.
Making Populations: Bounding Genes in Space and in Time.Lisa Gannett - 2003 - Philosophy of Science 70 (5):989-1001.
Multiple Biological Mothers: The Case for Gestation.Susan Feldman - 1992 - Journal of Social Philosophy 23 (1):98-104.
The Social Responsibilities of Biological Scientists.Stanley Joel Reiser & Ruth E. Bulger - 1997 - Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (2):137-143.
Parallels Between Joint Action and Biological Individuality.Cedric Paternotte - 2015 - In Thomas Pradeu & Alexandre Guay (eds.), Individuals Across The Sciences. Oxford University Press.
Essentialism, History, and Biological Taxa.Makmiller Pedroso - 2012 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 43 (1):182-190.
What's Wrong with the New Biological Essentialism.Marc Ereshefsky - 2010 - Philosophy of Science 77 (5):674-685.
Population Pluralism and Natural Selection.Jacob Stegenga - 2014 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science (1):axu003.
Population Pluralism and Natural Selection.Jacob Stegenga - 2016 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 67 (1):1-29.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2015-10-12

Total views
334 ( #31,712 of 2,519,518 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
7 ( #100,565 of 2,519,518 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes