Abstract

The utilitarian argument of John Harris and the libertarian position of Ronald Green concerning genetic modifications of children omit a parental perspective. John Rawls proposes that the negotiators of obligations to future generations be viewed as heads of families. Drawing upon John Rawls, Erik Malmqvist, and Michael Sandel, I defend four claims: first, in seeking to balance social stability, autonomy, and general welfare the negotiators of obligations to future generations would assign priority to social stability; secondly, the negotiators would preserve a distinction between therapeutic and non-therapeutic human genetic modifications; thirdly, they would rule out non-therapeutic genetic modifications of children; finally, the negotiators would endorse a right not to be discriminated against on the basis of genotype.