I'm confident that he'd be delighted, too, because I would love to be raised byThis gets right down the heart of a rather thorny philosophical issue - the nature of the self, and how we perceive the selves of others. If you're confident, as Caplan apparently is, that the self is genetically determined, then yes, you can project your own preferences onto a genetic copy of yourself. I am not at all confident of this, and frankly, I don't see any reason to be. If I were to clone myself, the clone would grow up in a different time, with entirely different formative experiences, and I think it's pretty likely he'd end up a different person than I am - just as identical twins, nature's clones, diverge in some ways when they are raised in different environments.
I've never met Caplan, and it feels unfairly judgmental to say this, but his preference for raising a genetic copy of himself, rather than a conventionally conceived child that's only partly him, and his confidence that this arrangement would be good for the child as well as for him, strike me as somewhat narcissistic. I've yet to have a child myself, so of course I can't say much about how the experience changes a person, as all my friends who do have children attest. But from where I sit, at least, it seems unfair to unduly burden one's child with one's own preconceptions and expectations, even when that child is not carrying one's exact genetic legacy.