According to Weinberg, what determines whether a responsibility is delegated or transferred is whether the identity of the person who is to fulfill that responsibility makes a meaningful difference to the manner in which it will be fulfilled. In cases where responsibility holder’s identity matters, responsibility is transferred; in cases where the responsibility holder’s identity does not matter, responsibility is delegated. To illustrate the difference between delegation and transfer, Weinberg asks us to contrast having the responsibility to teach a class with having the responsibility to bring cups to a party. In the case of the cups, it makes very little difference who brings them to the party. Because almost anyone could discharge this responsibility in an equivalent fashion, it is plausible for one person to ask another to fulfill this responsibility on their behalf. According to Weinberg, this makes it an example of delegation. By contrast, the way two people would teach a class differs greatly, even if both are competent. This is quite easy to imagine. For instance, one person might employ a more traditional lecture style while another might employ teaching techniques that involve lots of student interaction, such as
small group discussions. Weinberg argues that in these kinds of cases, responsibility is transferred rather than delegated.76 Presumably, this is because the substitute teacher is not merely standing in for the initial teacher, but is completely taking over the task of teaching by doing it in her own unique way.
Weinberg’s argument against the transferability of responsibility in the case of gamete providers rests on her claim that the identity of a particular person can be essential to a responsibility being properly fulfilled. Otherwise put, sometimes no one else but the original bearer of the responsibility is capable of fulfilling it. Weinberg takes the responsibility to love one’s children as a paradigmatic case of a non-transferable responsibility77 – a person cannot discharge of this obligation by hiring someone else to do it on their behalf. Since Weinberg thinks that gamete providers have parental
responsibilities, which include the responsibility to love their biological offspring78, the transfer of responsibility is not possible for gamete providers. In the following chapter, I will argue that gamete providers do not in fact have parental responsibility, but for now it is worth mentioning that Weinberg’s argument about transfer has an air of plausibility to it. For instance, if I hire a famous musician to play a concert, it does not seem like the musician could permissibly transfer her responsibility to perform to another musician. The audience is not simply interested in a musician, but bought tickets to see that
particular musician. This can be contrasted with the teacher case. Though perhaps the substitute teacher might have a different style, and so responsibility is transferred rather than delegated, what is important is that the students learn the material. So long as the
76
Weinberg, op. cit. p.176.
77
Ibid.
78
substitute teacher is equally effective, we might think that transferring responsibility in this circumstance is not morally problematic.
Weinberg’s proposal for distinguishing transfers from delegations fails, however, because it does not track our intuitions about when responsibility is retained by the person initially bound by it. There are many cases that fit into the category of transfer on Weinberg’s view, but where responsibility is not alienated in the way expected given the normal understanding of transfers of responsibility. Almost any example where a parent relies on the expertise of others to fulfill certain parental responsibilities satisfies
Weinberg’s criteria for transferring responsibility, yet it seems clear that the parent retains some care-taking responsibility. For instance, a parent might choose a public school over homeschooling for his child because he thinks the public school teachers will do a much better job of teaching than he would. However, if the parent discovers that the school is failing in its responsibility to educate his child, there is a strong intuition that the parent has a responsibility to find another school or to take on the task of teaching himself. The parent cannot simply claim that he had transferred the responsibility of educating his child to the school, so no further intervention is required on his part. This intuition shows that, in some cases, even when the performance of a task meets
Weinberg’s criteria for transfer, some forward-looking responsibility is retained. Given that the retention of forward-looking responsibility is characteristic of delegation, Weinberg’s distinction is not consistent with our common-sense notions of delegation and transfer.
More plausibly, examples like the famous musician show that in certain
neatly from the same conditions Weinberg lays out for when transferring responsibilities is impermissible. If a task cannot be fulfilled by another person because the identity of the person performing the task in question is necessary for the responsibility’s
fulfillment, then it is simply not possible to have another person ‘stand in’ and complete it on behalf of the initial bearer of the responsibility. This makes both delegation and transfer impermissible.
So far I have shown that Fuscaldo’s claim, that it is possible for gamete providers to transfer their responsibilities to others, rests on a failure to properly distinguish
delegation from transfer. Fuscaldo’s argument supports the permissibility, in some situations, of delegation, and not transfer. I have also shown that Weinberg’s argument against the transferability of responsibilities by gamete providers rests on criteria that do not capture basic intuitions about when responsibilities are transferred and when they are delegated. In the following section, I will provide a positive argument for why gamete providers cannot transfer, but can only delegate, their responsibilities. I will also outline the implications this has for the structure of responsibility between gamete providers and intending parents.