Abstract

In this dissertation, I advance and defend a theory about genetic engineering and its relationship to politics and political philosophy. Some theories deny that persons should have an option to use gene-manipulating technologies. Others assert that there should be no restrictions on our ability to employ the latest techniques of genetic science. Still others support eugenic policies. I propose a hybrid theory that I believe best fits our considered political intuitions: we should have the choice to genetically engineer offspring, this choice should be constrained, in no case should parents be forced to use gene-manipulating technologies, and all classes and types of people should have access to legitimate genetic engineering techniques. ;Because it conflicts with other cherished political philosophies, this hybrid theory is surprisingly hard to defend. It also has interesting and perhaps counterintuitive implications for political philosophy. For it turns out that the theory just described, which, on the surface, might appear to fall under the rubric of classical liberalism, provides a new justification for completely banning reproductive cloning, argues against traditional liberal conceptions of equality, and, in general, provides case study support for a more communitarian moral theory