Abstract

This dissertation first describes and defends what I call a "humanist approach" to understanding arguments. The approach is then applied to five standard ethical arguments or concerns about the use of germline genetic engineering. ;A humanist approach is one which aims to discover moral truth by subjecting candidate moral judgments to the requirement of consensus by all whom the judgment would affect, goes beyond logic for its methodology, admitting deeply held values, emotions, and convictions to the debate, respects others' views as moral and reasonable when they can be defended as such, is historic and context-sensitive, and places trust in human ability and desire to reach moral consensus. ;Germline genetic interventions will be those that manipulate the genes in early embryos before implantation so that the alteration affects all the cells in the developing embryo and the individual who is born as a result. The genetic change will remain in that person's progeny unless a further germline genetic intervention "undoes" the first one. The technology for germline genetic engineering is currently unavailable, and the practice is highly controversial for many reasons. The five arguments analyzed here concerning germline genetic engineering are: GLGE puts us on a slippery slope to eugenics. Because access to the technology will not be distributed justly, GLGE will exacerbate the disparity between our society's well-off and least well off. GLGE violates a fundamental principle of democracy---consent of the governed---inasmuch as parents will be deciding upon the traits and personalities of their offspring without their offspring's consent. GLGE may affect the evolution of our species. GLGE may alter the meaning and experience of being human. ;The dissertation does not draw conclusions or judgments regarding the arguments. Instead, it describes a context of deliberative democracy in which the debate over germline genetic engineering should take place and rules for engagement that foster the reaching of moral consensus on the issues