S Matthew Liao
S. Matthew Liao
Scroll
Director of the Center for Bioethics
Arthur Zitrin Professor of Bioethics
-
Professional overview
-
Dr. Matthew Liao uses the tools of philosophy to study and examine the ramifications of novel biomedical innovations.
A speaker at TEDxCERN, Dr. Liao discussed whether it is ethical for someone to erase certain aspects of their memories and how doing so might affect that individual's identity. He has also given a TED talk in New York and been featured in the New York Times, The Atlantic, The Guardian, and other numerous media outlets.
The author and editor of four books, Dr. Liao provides the academic community with a collection of human rights essays. In The Right to be Loved, he explores the philosophical foundations underpinning children's right to be loved, and proposes that we reconceptualize our policies concerning adoptions so that individuals who are not romantically linked can co-adopt a child together.
Dr. Liao provides students with an education grounded in a broad conception of bioethics encompassing both medical and environmental ethics. He offers students the opportunity to explore the intersection of human rights practice with central domains of public health and regularly teaches normative theory and neuroethics. His courses address how the rightness or wrongness of an act is determined and ethical issues arising out of new medical technologies such as embryonic stem cell research, cloning, artificial reproduction, and genetic engineering; ethical issues raised by the development and use of neuroscientific technologies such as the ethics of erasing traumatic memories; the ethics of mood and cognitive enhancements; and moral and legal implications of "mind-reading" technologies for brain privacy.
To learn more about Dr. Liao and his work, visit his website and blog.
-
Education
-
AB, Politics (Magna Cum Laude), Princeton University, Princeton, NJDPhil, Philosophy, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
-
Honors and awards
-
Outstanding Academic Title, The Right to Be Loved, Choice Review (2016)TEDx Speaker at CERN, Geneva, Switzerland (2015)TEDx Speaker, New York, NY (2013)Humanities Grant Initiative, NYU (2011)Big Think Delphi Fellow (2011)
-
Areas of research and study
-
BioethicsEpistemologyMetaphysicsMoral Psychology
-
Publications
Publications
Rightholding, Demandingness of Love, and Parental Licensing
AbstractLiao, S. M., & Liao, S. M. (n.d.).Publication year
2017Journal title
Philosophy and Phenomenological ResearchVolume
94Issue
3Page(s)
762-769Abstract~The Grounds of Ancillary Care Duties
AbstractLiao, S. M., Liao, S. M., O’Neil, C., Liao, S. M., & O’Neil, C. (n.d.).Publication year
2017Page(s)
29-42Abstract~Acknowledgments
AbstractLiao, S. M., Liao, S. M., & O’neil, C. (n.d.).Publication year
2016Page(s)
xAbstract~Are Intuitions Heuristics?
AbstractLiao, S. M., & Liao, S. M. (n.d.).Publication year
2016Abstract~Bioethics : Current Controversies
AbstractLiao, S. M., Matthew Liao, S., & O’neil, C. (n.d.).Publication year
2016Page(s)
1-11Abstract~Biological Parenting as a Human Right
AbstractLiao, S. M., & Liao, S. M. (n.d.).Publication year
2016Journal title
Journal of Moral PhilosophyVolume
13Issue
6Page(s)
652-668AbstractDo biological parents have the right to parent their own biological children? It might seem obvious that the answer is yes, but the philosophical justification for this right is uncertain. In recent years, there has been a flurry of philosophical activity aimed at providing fresh justifications for this right. In this paper, I shall propose a new answer, namely, the right to parent one's own biological children is a human right. I call this the human rights account of parental rights and I shall explain how this account is better than these other alternatives.Current Controversies in Bioethics
AbstractAbstractBioethics is the study of ethical issues arising out of advances in the life sciences and medicine. Historically, bioethics has been associated with issues in research ethics and clinical ethics as a result of research scandals such as the Tuskegee Syphilis Study and public debates about the definition of death, medical paternalism, health care rationing, and abortion. As biomedical technologies have advanced, challenging new questions have arisen for bioethics and new sub-disciplines such as neuroethics and public health ethics have entered the scene. This volume features ten original essays on five cutting-edge controversies in bioethics written by leading philosophers. I. Research Ethics: How Should We Justify Ancillary Care Duties? II. Clinical Ethics: Are Psychopaths Morally Accountable? III. Reproductive Ethics: Is There A Solution to the Non-Identity Problem? IV. Neuroethics: What is Addiction and Does It Excuse? V. Public Health Ethics: Is Luck Egalitarianism Implausibly Harsh? S. Matthew Liao and Collin O’Neil’s concise introduction to the essays in the volume, the annotated bibliographies and study questions for each controversy, and the supplemental guide to additional current controversies in bioethics give the reader a broad grasp of the different kinds of challenges in bioethics.Health (care) and human rights : a fundamental conditions approach
AbstractLiao, S. M., & Liao, S. M. (n.d.).Publication year
2016Journal title
Theoretical Medicine and BioethicsVolume
37Issue
4Page(s)
259-274AbstractMany international declarations state that human beings have a human right to health care. However, is there a human right to health care? What grounds this right, and who has the corresponding duties to promote this right? Elsewhere, I have argued that human beings have human rights to the fundamental conditions for pursuing a good life. Drawing on this fundamental conditions approach of human rights, I offer a novel way of grounding a human right to health care.Moral brains : the neuroscience of morality
AbstractLiao, S. M., & Liao, S. M. (n.d.).Publication year
2016Abstract~Morality and Neuroscience: Past and Future
AbstractLiao, S. M., & Liao, S. M. (n.d.).Publication year
2016Abstract~The Closeness Problem and the Doctrine of Double Effect : A Way Forward
AbstractLiao, S. M., & Liao, S. M. (n.d.).Publication year
2016Journal title
Criminal Law and PhilosophyVolume
10Issue
4Page(s)
849-863AbstractA major challenge to the Doctrine of Double Effect (DDE) is the concern that an agent’s intention can be identified in such a fine-grained way as to eliminate an intention to harm from a putative example of an intended harm, and yet, the resulting case appears to be a case of impermissibility. This is the so-called “closeness problem.” Many people believe that one can address the closeness problem by adopting Warren Quinn’s version of the DDE, call it DDE*, which distinguishes between harmful direct agency and harmful indirect agency. In this paper, I first argue that Quinn’s DDE* is just as vulnerable to the closeness problem as the DDE is. Second, some might think that what we should therefore do is give up on intentions altogether and move towards some kind of non-state-of-mind, victim-based deontology. I shall argue against this move and explain why intentions are indispensable to an adequate nonconsequentialist theory. Finally, I shall propose a new way of answering the closeness problem.The Grounds of Ancillary Care Duties
AbstractLiao, S. M., Matthew Liao, S., & O’neil, C. (n.d.).Publication year
2016Page(s)
29-42AbstractWhether and to what extent researchers have ‘ancillary care duties’ to address the unmet needs they encounter among their research participants is a relatively recent issue in research ethics. Much of the debate has focused on ‘special’ ancillary care duties, which hold uniquely between researchers and participants. There is disagreement about the grounds and precise scope of these special duties, but they are generally thought to pick up where the general duty of easy rescue leaves off. But easy rescue is not, we contend, the only possible general ground of ancillary care duties. In this chapter, we develop a novel human rights approach to ancillary care duties that, like easy rescue, is general but that may differ from it in terms of scope and demandingness. Only those needs that must be met to satisfy the fundamental conditions for pursuing a good life qua human beings, not merely qua individuals, fall within the scope of this human right.The Right of Children to Be Loved
AbstractAbstractThis chapter aims to satisfy critics of rights who believe correctly that rights should not be claimed without consideration as to whether they can be justified. To restrict the scope of the chapter, it assumes the following: there are rights, in particular human rights; children, even very young ones, can have rights; and there are positive rights. The chapter proposes that this right can be grounded as a human right and by showing that love can be an appropriate object of a duty. Furthermore, it also challenges the common notion that the duty to love a child belongs only to the biological parents. If the right of children to be loved is in fact a human right grounded in the fact that children need to be loved to develop essential capacities needed for a good life, then we, as a society, also need to accept part of the duty to promote a child's being loved as our responsibility.Human Rights as Fundamental Conditions for a Good Life
AbstractLiao, S. M., & Liao, S. M. (n.d.).Publication year
2015Abstract~Philosophical foundations of human rights
AbstractLiao, S. M., Cruft, R., Renzo, M., & Liao, S. M. (n.d.). (First edition.).Publication year
2015Abstract~The Philosophical Foundations of Human Rights: An Overview
AbstractLiao, S. M., Cruft, R., Liao, S. M., Renzo, M., Cruft, R., Liao, S. M., & Renzo, M. (n.d.).Publication year
2015Page(s)
1-44Abstract~After Prozac
AbstractLiao, S. M., Matthew Liao, S., & Roache, R. (n.d.).Publication year
2014Page(s)
245-258AbstractProzac’s introduction in the late 1980s, caused a furor and focused debate on the acceptability of a drug that could do more than merely cure illness, pharmacological mood enhancement – that is, the use of drugs to improve mood beyond a level that is merely normal or healthy. As the possibilities and demand for mood enhancement increase, existing legislation will prove inadequate, designed as it is to regulate pharmaceuticals mainly for therapeutic use. This chapter explains why mood enhancement might be desirable, explores some key ethical issues associated with it, and suggests how policy makers can respond to ensure that people use mood enhancement safely and responsibly. Whether it is appropriate to enhance one’s mood might also depend on the manner in which the mood is experienced. While unpleasant states like depression may be appropriate and valuable in some cases, they can be disruptive and disabling if they continue indefinitely.The right of children to be loved
AbstractLiao, S. M., & Liao, S. M. (n.d.).Publication year
2013Page(s)
347-363Abstract~Human Engineering and Climate Change
AbstractLiao, S. M., Liao, S. M., Sandberg, A., & Roache, R. (n.d.).Publication year
2012Journal title
Ethics, Policy and EnvironmentVolume
15Issue
2Page(s)
206-221AbstractAnthropogenic climate change is arguably one of the biggest problems that confront us today. There is ample evidence that climate change is likely to affect adversely many aspects of life for all people around the world, and that existing solutions such as geoengineering might be too risky and ordinary behavioural and market solutions might not be sufficient to mitigate climate change. In this paper, we consider a new kind of solution to climate change, what we call human engineering, which involves biomedical modifications of humans so that they can mitigate and/or adapt to climate change. We argue that human engineering is potentially less risky than geoengineering and that it could help behavioural and market solutions succeed in mitigating climate change. We also consider some possible ethical concerns regarding human engineering such as its safety, the implications of human engineering for our children and society, and we argue that these concerns can be addressed. Our upshot is that human engineering deserves further consideration in the debate about climate change.Intentions and moral permissibility : The case of acting permissibly with bad intentions
AbstractLiao, S. M., & Matthew Liao, S. (n.d.).Publication year
2012Journal title
Law and PhilosophyVolume
31Issue
6Page(s)
703-724AbstractMany people believe in the intention principle, according to which an agent's intention in performing an act can sometimes make an act that would otherwise have been permissible impermissible, other things being equal. Judith Jarvis Thomson, Frances Kamm and Thomas Scanlon have offered cases that seem to show that it can be permissible for an agent to act even when the agent has bad intentions. If valid, these cases would seem to cast doubt on the intention principle. In this paper, I point out that these cases have confounding factors that have received little attention in the literature. I argue that these confounding factors undermine the putative force of these cases against the intention principle. Indeed, when cases without these confounding factors are considered, it becomes clear, so I argue, that intentions can be relevant for the permissibility of an act.Political and naturalistic conceptions of human rights : A false polemic?
AbstractLiao, S. M., Liao, S. M., & Etinson, A. (n.d.).Publication year
2012Journal title
Journal of Moral PhilosophyVolume
9Issue
3Page(s)
327-352AbstractWhat are human rights? According to one longstanding account, the Naturalistic Conception of human rights, human rights are those that we have simply in virtue of being human. In recent years, however, a new and purportedly alternative conception of human rights has become increasingly popular. This is the so-called Political Conception of human rights, the proponents of which include John Rawls, Charles Beitz, and Joseph Raz. In this paper we argue for three claims. First, we demonstrate that Naturalistic Conceptions of human rights can accommodate two of the most salient concerns that proponents of the Political Conception have raised about them. Second, we argue that the theoretical distance between Naturalistic and Political Conceptions is not as great as it has been made out to be. Finally, we argue that a Political Conception of human rights, on its own, lacks the resources necessary to determine the substantive content of human rights. If we are right, not only should the Naturalistic Conception not be rejected, the Political Conception is in fact incomplete without the theoretical resources that a Naturalistic Conception characteristically provides. These three claims, in tandem, provide a fresh and largely conciliatory perspective on the ongoing debate between proponents of Political and Naturalistic Conceptions of human rights.Putting the trolley in order : Experimental philosophy and the loop case
AbstractLiao, S. M., Liao, S. M., Wiegmann, A., Alexander, J., & Vong, G. (n.d.).Publication year
2012Journal title
Philosophical PsychologyVolume
25Issue
5Page(s)
661-671AbstractIn recent years, a number of philosophers have conducted empirical studies that survey people's intuitions about various subject matters in philosophy. Some have found that intuitions vary accordingly to seemingly irrelevant facts: facts about who is considering the hypothetical case, the presence or absence of certain kinds of content, or the context in which the hypothetical case is being considered. Our research applies this experimental philosophical methodology to Judith Jarvis Thomson's famous Loop Case, which she used to call into question the validity of the intuitively plausible Doctrine of Double Effect. We found that intuitions about the Loop Case vary according to the context in which the case is considered. We contend that this undermines the supposed evidential status of intuitions about the Loop Case. We conclude by considering the implications of our findings for philosophers who rely on the Loop Case to make philosophical arguments and for philosophers who use intuitions in general.The genetic account of moral status : A defense
AbstractLiao, S. M., & Liao, S. M. (n.d.).Publication year
2012Journal title
Journal of Moral PhilosophyVolume
9Issue
2Page(s)
265-277AbstractChristopher Grau argues that the genetic basis for moral agency account of rightholding is problematic because it fails to grant all human beings the moral status of rightholding; it grants the status of rightholding to entities that do not intuitively deserve such status; and it assumes that the genetic basis for moral agency has intrinsic/final value, but the genetic basis for moral agency only has instrumental value. Grau also argues that those who are inclined to hold that all human beings are rightholders should reconsider speciesism. In this paper, I argue that Grau's objections do not undermine the genetic basis for moral agency account of rightholding, and I also offer criticisms of Grau's defense of speciesism.