The Huffington Post reported on Ed Houben who is a styled “sperm donor” who has fathered 82 children.
He is not only a sperm “donor” but a “volunteer” as he “performs his services for free, offering women and couples a chance to conceive a child without the expense of using a sperm bank.”
What a swell guy, he is so benevolent, compassionate, caring, sharing, heroic…
Well, while he is a “donor” and a “volunteer” there is an upside, a special sort of benefit for him since, “Houben is different from typical sperm donors in that he actually has sex with the women to whom he is donating.”
It is noted that “According to his own self-collected data, Houben succeeds in producing a child 80 percent of the time.” So, he has “fathered” (in quotes because a sperm donor is not a “father” but rather just an useful bio-organism) 82 children with a success rate of 80 which means that he has engaged in more than 82 instances of fornication aka immorally sinful unmarried sex—sometimes with married women so, throw adultery into the mix.
As you saw in the headline, Arianna Huffington specifically notes that this is “not immoral.” One can only wonder, with utter shock and dread, what she does consider immoral—perhaps abstinence. This goes to show the grammatical, conceptual, philosophical difference between morals and ethics.
While both terms are used interchangeably, here is one way to understand them (see the essays under Morality / Ethics):
Morals: refer to the mores which merely describe that which people do. Thus, morals are, by definition, situational, tentative, relative, intrinsic, etc.
Ethics: refer to the ethos which actually prescribes that which people ought to do. Thus, ethics are, by definition, absolute, extrinsic, etc.
For elucidation of this issue, see the following videos:
Morals vs. Ethics: Greg Koukl vs. John Baker debate “Do moral truths exist?”
Morality: consideration of 7 possible premises
Atheist vs. Christian debate morality: karmatheism, atheism’s selfish “morality”
Where do atheists get their morals? From the Matt Slick vs. Edwin Kagin debate, part 1 of 2
Where do atheists get their morals? From the Matt Slick vs. Edwin Kagin debate, part 2 of 2
The UK’s Daily Mail describes Ed Houben as the “most prolific professional babymaker in the world.” What a tragedy that a sacred institution such as fatherhood has devolved into sperm donorship, babymakers, baby daddy, etc. In fact, he is a self-described “donorsexual.”
Saint Houben stated:
“I do it because I know how hard it is for people who desperately want a child,” he told the Telegraph. “Also going through fertility clinics can be very time-consuming and costly for them.”
Although, in his defence (yeah, right) he did make headlines “for fathering 14 kids without ever having sex.” Wow, what a moral hero!
Yes, yes, yes, the issue of infertile couples is sad and serious but that does not mean that we should champion such personages or that he should be viewed as “not immoral.”
Some people have made themselves into such caricatures that one could not make fun of them even if they wanted to nor could they make it up. How could you make fun of and/or invent that someone would refer to a multi-multi-multi-fornicating adulterer as being “not immoral” and yet, there it is as promulgated by an intellectual, or whatever Arianna Huffington is supposed to be.
To excuse him on the grounds that he is providing benefit, the blessing of having children to married couples (and, do not forget, some unmarried women who will raise fatherless children), via fornication would be to appeal to the philosophy of the ends justifying the means.
By such a philosophy absolutely anything can be said to be justified. For an example of this see the video Atheism and Rape wherein, for example, Dan Barker claims that rape is not absolutely immoral.