Moral Maze

Live debate examining the moral issues behind one of the week's news stories. #moralmaze

Reform's Robert Jenrick has described Britain’s welfare system as “suicidal empathy.” It’s also the title of a recent book by the Canadian marketing Professor Gad Saad, who argues that a misdirected sense of empathy can lead to favouring certain people over others – for example, the criminal over the victim. The idea has gained an admirer in Elon Musk who said that "the fundamental weakness of Western civilization is empathy". The claim is that unconditional compassion is not a strength but a soft spot to be exploited, clouding our moral judgements.

Critics argue that empathy is the moral foundation of care for the most vulnerable in society and righteous anger against injustice. They see the language of “toxic” or “parasitic” empathy as laying the groundwork for inhuman treatment. Rousseau saw pity as the most natural of human virtues – an instinct which makes us not simply walk on by when we see someone suffering. Removing empathy, in other words, makes us both less human and less humane.

Whether in the realm of welfare policy, immigration numbers or prison conditions, the philosophical argument is between those who say feeling for others is the foundation of morality, and those who believe empathy can be a moral liability.

Chair: Michael Buerk Panel: Mona Siddiqui, Tim Stanley, Sonia Sodha and Ella Whelan. Witnesses: Matt Goodwin, Paul Sagar, Philippa Smethurst and Luke Bretherton. Producer: Dan Tierney Assistant producer: Peter Everett Editor: Chloe Walker

America’s Vice-President, J. D. Vance, has been talking about the end of the world, saying he “wouldn’t be shocked” if the Anti-Christ was walking amongst us.

Most people are living incomparably better lives than generations ago - and history is full of warnings of apocalypse - so how should we respond to warnings of catastrophe and end times?

Do such warnings encourage moral behaviour? Do they spur people to take action on important issues - or can they lead to despair and paralysis.

Do thoughts of an end give life more meaning?

Should we take threats to the way we live as a warning to look after our loved ones - or is it an opportunity to think more widely and work out how to strengthen our community ties.

Which end of the political spectrum is more likely to resort to the language of doom-laden prophecy, and to what end?

What does this increasingly apocalyptic view of the world tell us about the world we live in, the problems we face, and the society we’ve become?

Witnesses: Leigh Price, Elizabeth Oldfield, Dr Ian Paul and Dr Daniel Nilsson DeHanas Presenter: Michael Buerk Panellists: Anne McElvoy, Matthew Taylor, Mona Siddiqui, Tim Stanley Producer: Catherine Murray Asst Producer: Jay Unger Editor Chloe Walker

A record one in seven people in England were prescribed antidepressants in the last year, according to NHS figures. More than nine million patients now take the drugs, and while they may be essential in many cases, the prevalence of mental ill-health – stress, anxiety, burnout – is a moral issue as well as a medical one. Why are more people, including under-18s, presenting to their GP with these conditions, and what should we do about it?

Many clinicians believe anti-depressants serve an important function, including in milder cases, particularly where access to talking therapies is limited. This, they say, is both a practical and compassionate response to suffering, and a respect for patient autonomy. However, there is disagreement among psychiatrists, some of whom argue that everyday stress is being patholigised. They see drugs as morally hazardous in certain cases, since they alter mental sates, blunt emotions and create dependence on the drugs themselves, reducing people’s long-term capacity to cope.

Beyond the clinical response, there are deeper questions to consider about our society and culture. NHS figures suggest patients in the most deprived areas were prescribed antidepressants 44% more than in the least deprived areas. Many mental health campaigners see the crisis as a social harm, caused by poverty, inequality and insecurity. They believe that rather than simply treating the symptoms of distress, we have a social responsibility to fix the structural causes: better housing, secure working conditions, and a fairer distribution of the resources people need to live dignified lives. For others, the crisis represents something even more fundamental: a loss of meaning, purpose, connection, and resilience.

How should we respond to rising mental distress?

Chair: Michael Buerk Panel: Ash Sarkar, Giles Fraser, Anne McElvoy and Carmody Grey Witnesses: Ellie Cannon, Joanna Moncrieff, Polly Mackenzie and Mark Vernon Producer: Dan Tierney Assistant producer: Peter Everett Editor: Tim Pemberton

AI data centres are expanding across the UK and around the world. Tech giants and governments see them as essential infrastructure for future prosperity; the engines of economic growth, scientific innovation, improved healthcare and national security. Advocates believe they will bring about the next technological leap forward for humanity.

But there are always trade-offs. Critics point to the immediate environmental costs; the demand for electricity, water and land. They question whether the promised rewards justify the sacrifices, particularly for local populations who face the disruption of new developments while the economic benefits go elsewhere.

Are we, as a society, being swept along by an AI 'arms race' we didn’t consent to? Are we right to put faith in tech billionaires who prophesy a future of progress and human flourishing, or are we simply enabling more consumption? (Every video of Elon Musk as Austin Powers drinks around 4 litres of water). And even if AI promises to solve climate change and eradicate disease, how much are we willing to place on that bet today?

Chair: Michael Buerk Panel: Giles Fraser, Mona Siddiqui, Andrew Copson and Ella Whelan. Witnesses: Owen Espley, Michael Tobin, Carissa Véliz, Carlo Cordasco. Producer: Dan Tierney Assistant producer: Peter Everett Editor: Tim Pemberton

Michael Buerk chairs a special debate from the Hay Festival examining the morality of networks.

The release of the Epstein files has been a reminder that power often flows not just through formal institutions, but through webs of connection: political friendships, old school ties, and professional circles. There's been focused attention on how influential networks operate, and how access, opportunity and protection can follow. Critics say such cases expose a world where success depends less on merit than on who you know.

But networks are not confined to the wealthy or the powerful. From journalism and politics to business, academia and religion, informal relationships shape how institutions actually work. People rely on contacts for jobs, introductions and advice. Trust is built through familiarity. Sociologists call this “social capital”, the networks of relationships that allow communities and organisations to function. Anthropologists go further: humans are a networked species, whose survival has long depended on cooperation, loyalty and mutual obligation.

The moral tension is that the same instincts that create trust also draw boundaries. Networks build solidarity, but they also decide who is inside and who is left outside. Opportunity, influence and sometimes harm can circulate within closed circles. What looks like loyalty from the inside can look like exclusion from the outside.

So when does social capital become social injustice? Are networks the glue of society, or the architecture of privilege?

Chair: Michael Buerk; Panel: Anne McElvoy, Matthew Taylor, Mona Siddiqui and Ella Whelan; Witnesses: Aaron Reeves, George Pitcher, Andrew Graystone, Julia Hobsbawm; Producer: Dan Tierney; Editor: Tim Pemberton.

In 1776, Thomas Jefferson wrote that all men are created equal, endowed with unalienable rights... life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. During his lifetime Jefferson owned more than 620 slaves. As America marks 250 years since the Declaration, that contradiction is impossible to look past: a document of universal liberty, written by men who denied it to the women in their households, the people they enslaved, and the nations whose land they were settling.

One reading says this was hypocrisy - that "all men" never meant all men, that the rhetoric of equality was cover for the interests of rich, white, Anglo-Saxon Protestants, and that the centuries of struggle since have been a slow correction of a lie dressed up as a promise. Another reading says something genuinely radical was set loose that day - a principle larger than its authors, one that would eventually demand Abolition, Enfranchisement and the end of Segregation, precisely because the words of the Declaration meant more than the men who put their names to it could envisage. On this account, the Founding Fathers endorsed an ideal and left their descendants to grow into it.

That same split runs through America today. The current presidency has departed from constitutional norms everyone had assumed were solid - over courts, elections, the press and the limits of executive power. One view says this is a crisis the Republic will survive: a serious one, but a blip in the two and a half centuries during which American institutions have weathered civil war, economic depression, and social upheaval, and during which the founding ideals have always held firm. The soul of America gets shaken, but it holds. The other view says the Republic was never held together by Constitutional Law - it was held together by a myth - a shared belief, perhaps deluded, that Americans would behave decently and that the norms would prevail. Once a leader has tested every one of those boundaries and paid no price, the myth shatters, and there is nothing to stop the next leader from going further. On this view, the current administration is a distorted reflection of what America truly is.

Chair: Michael Buerk Panel: Giles Fraser, Carmody Grey, Matthew Taylor and Tim Stanley. Witnesses: Richard Carwardine, Aziz Rana, Adam White and Claire Ainsley. Producer: Dan Tierney Assistant Producer: Pater Everett Editor: Tim Pemberton

If Andy Burnham has a four-word philosophy, it is 'the politics of place', a phrase he uses often. Burnham argues that politics must concentrate on meeting local needs, on the devolution of power and on 'levelling up' the places that have been doing badly.

While he was winning in Makerfield, the Scottish Conservatives were winning in Aberdeen South, on a promise to revive the North Sea oil and gas industry. That too was the politics of place.

Burnham’s philosophical opponents say that 'the politics of place' is wrong-headed. What really matters is the destiny of the United Kingdom as a whole. Localism, they argue, undermines national cohesion and elevates nimbyism. It rewards failure and punishes success. The Americans call it pork-barrel politics.

The battle between localists and UK nationalists engages all politicians. Plaid Cymru and the Scottish National Party are by definition on one side of the line; the DUP in Northern Ireland is on the other. At Westminster, MPs go cross-eyed trying to watch over their constituencies and their careers at the same time. Boris Johnson created a Department for Levelling-Up. Angela Rayner called it ‘government by gimmick’ and abolished it in 2024.

If localism is the answer for Makerfield, is it also the answer for Sparkbrook, where voters might like different licensing laws? Or for Adlington, where locals hate the idea of a new housing estate? Or for Harmondsworth, which doesn’t want a Heathrow third runway at the bottom of the garden?

The politics of place; it looks good. But will Burnham, like Pandora, open this tempting box, only to release all the troubles of the world? In his victory speech he promised us ‘hope’. In the Greek myth, the gift of hope was merely a consolation prize.

Chair: Michael Buerk Panel: Anne McElvoy, Ash Sarkar, Giles Fraser, and Sonia Sodha Witnesses: Paul Vallely, Maxwell Marlow, Sir Paul Collier and David Goodhart. Producer: Dan Tierney Assistant Producer: Peter Everett Editor: Tim Pemberton

In his first encyclical, Magnifica Humanitas, Pope Leo XIV warned that artificial intelligence threatens the dignity of the human person.

Human exceptionalism - the belief that we are special, both within the animal kingdom and in the eyes of God - rests on a single distinction. We don't just think. We know that we're thinking. We have moral agency. Our religions tell us we have souls. That distinction is now under threat from two directions simultaneously.

Firstly, we have discovered that the creatures we share this planet with are vastly more capable than we thought. Animals we considered simple-minded - octopuses, bees, parrots, elephants - can plan, learn, teach and use tools. Some display altruism, grief, loyalty and shame.

Secondly, artificial intelligence and biotechnology are acquiring the characteristics we thought were uniquely ours. AI is developing personality, intentionality and self-awareness at a speed that has no historical precedent. The quantum computer, which Richard Feynman imagined less than half a century ago, is now being built. And in our laboratories, researchers are growing neuron networks and may soon create hybrid creatures combining animal instinct with human-like reasoning. Only our ethics stand in the way.

If the boundaries between human, animal and machine are dissolving from both directions, the question is no longer academic. What - if anything - makes us morally exceptional?

Chair: Michael Buerk Panel: Ash Sarkar, James Orr, Mona Siddiqui and Tim Stanley Witnesses: Steve Cooke, John Milbank, Nick Bostrom and Carmody Grey Producer: Dan Tierney Assistant producers: Peter Everett and Liberty Phelan Editor: Tim Pemberton.

The 2026 World Cup is the biggest in the tournament's history, with 48 teams playing 104 matches across three countries: The United States, Mexico and Canada.

For many, this summer's competition reveals that the game has drifted irreversibly from its working-class roots. Ticket prices are prohibitive for ordinary fans. FIFA's governance has been dogged by corruption scandals. Money and power have thoroughly colonised its institutions. And human rights groups warn this tournament will be a “bonanza of sportswashing”, consciously deployed by a US administration conducting mass deportations of migrants, many of them Latin American, as soft-power cover.

But others argue that markets set prices and fans made their choice. Commercialisation is the price of the game's global reach and football's globalisation has been a democratic force. Free-to-air coverage means the World Cup remains genuinely universal. For supporters of nations qualifying for the first time in decades, this is pure, uncomplicated joy. Some contend that those who weaponise sport for political protest are doing exactly what they accuse Trump of: subordinating the game to an agenda. And if moral purity were the admission criterion, no tournament would ever be staged anywhere.

Is the World Cup morally compromised?

Chair: Michael Buerk Panel: Ash Sarkar, Giles Fraser, Matthew Taylor and Jonathan Sumption Witnesses: Minky Worden, Mark Littlewood, Kieran Maguire and Graham Spiers Producer: Dan Tierney Assistant Producer: Peter Everett Editor: Chloe Walker

A Labour leadership challenge would mean Britain could have a seventh prime minister in a decade. Each change of leadership promises renewal, but each delivers fresh disappointment. Meanwhile the problems compound: crumbling infrastructure, polluted waterways, a cost-of-living crisis, a planet warming faster than our policy responses. Why can't a mature democracy fix things it can clearly see are broken?

In the late 1960s, Stanford psychologist Walter Mischel devised a deceptively simple test of human nature. A child is left alone with a single marshmallow and a choice: eat it now, or wait fifteen minutes and receive two. It measures willpower, impulse control, and the capacity to sacrifice immediate satisfaction for a better long-term outcome. Mischel's follow-up studies found that children who waited tended to grow into healthier, better-educated, more emotionally stable adults. But subsequent researchers identified a crucial caveat: children from unstable backgrounds, used to broken promises, were entirely rational to eat immediately, since they didn't trust that the second marshmallow would ever arrive.

Britain, it could be argued, is living through its own national marshmallow test, and the results are troubling. Critics of the current political settlement point out that politicians face structural incentives to fix today's headlines rather than next decade's crises. The five-year electoral horizon means anything beyond it risks being kicked down the road: HS2, the infected blood scandal, Net Zero. Voters, burned by serial betrayal, rationally demand immediate relief on bills, welfare and petrol prices, even when the long-term cost is severe. And hovering over the whole system is the media. Twenty-four hour news demands a fresh scoop every hour, and social media algorithms reward outrage over reflection. If politicians are punished for nuance and rewarded for noise, and voters are algorithmically nudged towards the most inflammatory version of every story, is the entire information environment now rigged against long-term thinking?

If voters rationally distrust politicians, and politicians rationally pander to voters, who bears the moral responsibility for our collective short-termism? And crucially, who bears the responsibility for breaking the cycle? Is it about radical institutional or electoral reform? Does it require a more uncomfortable kind of leadership: politicians willing to tell hard truths, and voters willing to reward them? Who should bear the brunt of any short-term pain? Can we demand courage from leaders we've trained to be cowards? And if so, how do we first rebuild the trust – and the information environment – that makes waiting for the second marshmallow feel rational again?

Chair: Michael Buerk Panel: Mona Siddiqui, Tim Stanley, Ash Sarkar and James Orr Witnesses: Paul Dolan, James Williams, Sonia Purnell and Karl Pike Producer: Dan Tierney Assistant producer: Peter Everett Editor: Tim Pemberton

Universities across the country are cutting back on humanities courses – philosophy, history, modern languages – subjects long seen as central to a well-rounded education. The reason is familiar: falling student numbers, financial pressure, and a growing insistence that degrees must demonstrate clear economic value. If a course doesn’t lead to a well-paid job, why should anyone fund it?

That points to a deeper divide about what education is for. Is it an intrinsic good: valuable in itself, shaping critical thinking, moral judgment, and an understanding of the world? Or is it an extrinsic one: a means to an end, justified by the jobs it produces and the growth it delivers?

For centuries, from Socrates onwards, education has been tied to human flourishing – to forming citizens, not just workers. But today, the language has shifted. Students are consumers. Universities compete. Courses are judged by salary. And the tensions don’t stop there. If education is a public good, why does access remain so uneven, divided between state and private schools, with women significantly underrepresented in STEM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics) – opportunity shaped as much by background as by ability? And as our understanding of neurodiversity deepens, a further challenge emerges. What if the system itself – built around standardisation, testing, and conformity – has actively hindered the prospects of many it was meant to serve?

So what, ultimately, is education for? Is it possible to maximise economic potential and enable every individual to flourish? And if our system does the former at the expense of the latter, can it still claim to be a moral one?

Chair: Michael Buerk Panel: Mona Siddiqui, Tim Stanley, Carmody Grey and Giles Fraser. Witnesses: Maxwell Marlow, Julian Baggini and Jess Wade and Chris Bonnello. Producer: Dan Tierney Editor: Tim Pemberton.

Today, humanity reaches towards the Moon once more. The first crewed lunar mission in more than 50 years.

But as NASA’s Artemis 2 lifts off, some troubling moral questions follow in its wake.

Are the billions of pounds being spent a visionary investment in our future, or a luxury we can't afford while poverty, disease, and a climate crisis demand urgent action here on Earth?

Who benefits from space exploration? The wealthy nations that lead it or all of humanity?

Is there really a moral imperative to explore the possibility of how to live on other planets?

And ... as we venture outwards, do we risk repeating the mistakes of colonial expansion?

That's our Moral Maze tonight ... the ethics of human space flight

WITNESSES: Dr Simeon Barber, Lunar Scientist at Open University; Dr Stuart Parkinson, Executive Director of Scientists for Global Responsibility; Dr Tony Milligan, Philosopher in Space Ethics; Mary-Jane Rubenstein, Professor of Religion and Science in Society at Wesleyan University PANELLISTS: Carmody Grey, Anne McElvoy, James Orr and Sonia Sodha PRESENTER: William Crawley

The Church of England marks a historic moment: the installation of its first female Archbishop of Canterbury. A symbol, many would say, of progress in an institution often accused of resisting it. And yet, even as she takes office, around 600 churches reportedly refuse to recognise the authority of ordained women. For them, this is not prejudice but principle. An adherence to theological conviction.

It comes amid fresh scrutiny about the Church’s place in national life - from Prince William signalling a more modern, personal relationship with it, to the Green Party reopening the question of disestablishment. The Church of England is not just a religious body. As the established church, it is entwined with the state. Its bishops sit in Parliament. Its role extends, at least in theory, to the whole nation. It claims to be “a church for everyone.” And yet it operates with exemptions from equality law, particularly in its approach to women’s leadership and same-sex relationships. Defenders argue that religious freedom must include the freedom to dissent from prevailing social norms. Critics counter that an institution with constitutional privilege cannot also claim the right to discriminate.

But there is a further tension. The Church speaks as a national institution at a time when fewer people identify with it at all. Attendance has declined steadily. Belief itself is becoming more marginal in a society that is increasingly secular. For many citizens, religion is not just optional but irrelevant.

So what does establishment mean in such a society? Should the Church be brought into line with equality law or separated from the state altogether? And more fundamentally: can an established church still claim moral authority in a nation that is steadily moving away from it?

Chair: William Crawley. Panel: Carmody Grey, Tim Stanley, Mona Siddiqui and Anne McElvoy. Witnesses: Andrew Copson, Bishop David Walker, Jonathan Chaplin and Rev Charlie Bączyk-Bell. Producer: Dan Tierney Assistant producer: Jay Unger Editor: Tim Pemberton.

Rising oil prices triggered by war have renewed fears of an economic shock. Governments are already under pressure to step in: to cap prices, cushion bills and shield households from the consequences. Yet crises were once understood differently. During earlier shocks, citizens were often told to tighten their belts, to accept rationing, higher prices and shared sacrifice. But memories of past hardship can also be misleading. There is sometimes a tendency to romanticise earlier generations’ stoicism. Today the assumption seems different: if living standards fall, the government must intervene.

The idea of sacrifice raises difficult questions. Who exactly is the “we” being asked to shoulder the burden? A rise in energy costs may be uncomfortable for some but devastating for those already living precariously. Hardship is rarely shared equally. If sacrifice is demanded, how should it be distributed? There is also a deeper question about what we mean by sacrifice at all. The word is often used simply to mean going without. Yet traditionally it carried a stronger philosophical meaning: the willingness to give something up for a higher purpose or the common good. Some argue that modern democracies have become reluctant to ask citizens for such things, fearing the political cost. Governments promise protection instead, even when the resources to deliver it are limited.

And yet the challenges ahead may demand difficult choices. From energy shocks to climate change, societies may have to decide whether they are prepared to accept lower living standards in pursuit of wider goals. So in a democracy, should citizens expect protection from every crisis? Does the government have a duty to be open and honest with us about the hard choices we face? Or do we have a duty to accept sacrifice when circumstances demand it?

Chair: Michael Buerk Panel: Matthew Taylor, Ash Sarkar, James Orr and Ella Whelan. Witnesses: James Bartholomew, Grace Blakeley, Rupert Read and Adrian Pabst Producer: Dan Tierney Assistant producer: JayUnger Editor: Tim Pemberton

Relations between Britain and the United States have rarely been described as simple, but they have long been called special. Yet in recent days that relationship has come under strain, after a sharp exchange between Donald Trump and Keir Starmer over the latest international crisis and Britain’s response to it. For more than eighty years the United Kingdom has defined its place in the world partly through its alliance with the United States. But moments like this raise uncomfortable questions about how Britain should act amid a shifting global order.

Some argue that foreign policy must ultimately be guided by national interest. In an uncertain world, they say, Britain cannot afford to jeopardise its most important alliance. Presidents come and go, but the strategic relationship between the two countries endures. In that view, the moral case is one of engagement, diplomacy, influence and the long-term security and prosperity of British citizens.

Others believe that alliances cannot come at the expense of values. The Canadian prime minister Mark Carney recently warned that the world has entered an “age of rupture”, where the rules and norms that once governed international relations are beginning to fray. When Britain disagrees with its closest ally – particularly on questions of war and peace – it has a responsibility to defend those principles, even at the risk of friction or isolation.

So in these extraordinary times, should foreign policy be guided primarily by principle or by pragmatic self-interest? What should the balance be between ethical idealism and strategic reality? Can interests and values truly align? And ultimately, what is the role of morality in foreign policy?

Chair: Michael Buerk Panel: Matthew Taylor, Giles Fraser, Ash Sarkar and Tim Stanley Witnesses: Jan Halper-Hayes, Peter Oborne, Christopher Hill, Jamie Gaskarth Producer: Dan Tierney Assistant Producer: Jay Unger Editor: Chloe Walker.

Conflict has deepened in the Middle East since the United States and Israel launched a coordinated wave of air and missile strikes across Iran, targeting military facilities, nuclear sites and the country’s leadership.

Supporters argue the attacks were necessary. Iran’s missile programme, its support for armed proxies across the region and its long-running nuclear ambitions have convinced some Western leaders that waiting would only make a future conflict far more dangerous. In that view, striking first may be grim, but it is sometimes the least bad option. Others frame the issue in terms of human rights. Iran’s government has long been accused of brutal repression at home, imprisoning dissidents, violently suppressing protests and enforcing strict controls over women’s lives. To some, confronting such a regime is not simply a matter of strategic calculation but of moral responsibility.

But critics see something more troubling: the deliberate bombing of a sovereign state without international authorisation and with potentially catastrophic consequences. Iran has already retaliated with missiles and drones across the region, targeting U.S. bases and cities in Gulf states, while Iran-backed militias have joined the fight. And the human cost is becoming clearer. A missile strike on a girls’ school in southern Iran reportedly killed at least 150 people, many of them children, though the circumstances remain disputed. While many Iranians are celebrating the death of their Supreme Leader, others are sceptical about the human rights motives of the strikes.

Is it moral to attack Iran?

Chair: Michael Buerk Panel: Matthew Taylor, Anne McElvoy, Mona Siddiqui and James Orr. Witnesses: Barak Seener, Simon Mabon, Shiva Mahbobi, Jeff McMahan. Producer: Dan Tierney Assistant Producer: Jay Unger Editor: Tim Pemberton.

What is truth? In a special edition of The Moral Maze, we discuss perhaps the most significant question in all of human thought. It sits at the foundation of how we understand reality, and how we communicate and behave towards one another.

The obvious answer is that the strongest possible way to arrive at the truth in a shifting world of AI and authoritarian control is through a commitment to empirical data and provable facts. However, this can only ever get us so far because truth is always told from somewhere. Even objective facts can be curated from one perspective. Stories about ourselves and the world have been necessary, alongside partial data, to keep the social order and to prevent us from being overwhelmed. The historian uses limited sources to tell a story about our past. Language constrains how we articulate who we are, what we do and how we think and feel. Where science falters in expanding the horizons of truth, artists and theologians step in with their own insights that truth can be discovered through poetry and mysticism. That’s before the postmodernists come along and state that what we think of as truth is constructed rather than discovered; that the ‘truth’ we seek doesn’t really exist; that it’s all a fiction to give our lives meaning and purpose.

Chair: Michael Buerk Panel: Mona Siddiqui, Giles Fraser, Anne McElvoy and Ash Sarkar Witnesses: Charlie Beckett, Fay Bound-Alberti, Mark Vernon and Hilary Lawson Producer: Dan Tierney.

Tommy Robinson's carol concert claimed to be "putting Christ back into Christmas". Church of England Bishops quickly pointed out that Christ never went away and warned about Christmas becoming another proxy in the culture wars. Many of Robinson's supporters are turning to Christianity. Some have openly stated that the Christian faith is a cultural ballast, representing British freedoms and values, and a defence against a perceived threat posed by Islam and immigrants. For others, Christianity and Christmas is being appropriated in the most un-Christian way, the Holy Family were persecuted refugees, and a central message of Jesus was one of radical hospitality for the stranger.

This year, Christmas comes at the time of a wider debate about so-called "civilizational erasure" in Europe, following the publication of America's National Security Strategy. It boldly states that, within a few decades, NATO members will be "majority non-European", encourages the resistance - and praises the influence - of "patriotic" European parties, including Alternative fur Deutschland (AfD) in Germany, a far-right anti-immigration party.

Is a full-throated defence of Christmas a sign of strength or weakness? What's the bigger threat to Europe: "cultural erasure", or far-right populism?

Chair: Michael Buerk Panel: Giles Fraser, Inaya Folarin-Iman, Anne McElvoy and Matthew Taylor Witnesses: Chris Wickland, Krish Kandiah, Eric Kaufmann and Adrian Pabst Producer: Dan Tierney.

As Australia begins its pioneering social media ban for under-16s, governments around the world will be watching closely. The move, which represents a significant challenge to Big Tech's dominance, aims to protect children from online harms like cyberbullying, grooming, exposure to violent/misogynistic content, as well as anxiety and depression linked to excessive screen time and addictive platform designs. Should other countries, including the UK, follow suit?

Evidence suggests social media ‘doom scrolling’ changes our brainwave activity, affecting attention spans (children are reading less than in the past), altering reward pathways with dopamine ‘hits’, and influencing emotional regulation and social processing (combined with a decline in outdoor play). Critics argue a blanket social media ban treats all under-16s as a homogeneous risk group, denying them moral agency, rather than distinguishing between responsible and problematic use. Others fear a loss of mainstream online community spaces could lead to further isolation and push some teenagers toward more dangerous platforms or behaviours.

Should children be banned from social media?

Chair: Michael Buerk Panel: Carmody Grey, Mona Siddiqui, Giles Fraser and Anne McElvoy Witnesses: Jennifer Powers, Timandra Harkness, James Williams and Tony D Sampson. Producer: Dan Tierney

The jury trial has been around for almost 1,000 years. Magna Carta, in 1215, enshrined the principle that “No free man shall be... imprisoned… except by the lawful judgement of his peers.” That could be about to change, under the proposal by the Justice Secretary, David Lammy, to restrict jury trials to the most serious cases. The aim is to deal with an unprecedented backlog in the courts. Britain, thus far, has been in the minority: most countries around the world rely on judges – not juries – to evaluate the evidence, assess guilt, and deliver justice. Those in favour of juries see them as a moral institution, putting justice in the hands of randomly-selected ordinary people, rather than those of the state or a legal elite, and so reducing the chance of a biased or blinkered verdict. Opponents argue that juries can be obstacles to justice, not immune to prejudiced decisions, and lacking the expertise to weigh up the evidence in complex cases. While some see the jury system as a redundant relic of the past, others believe the deliberative democratic principle it embodies should be extended to other areas of public life in innovative ways. Should we, as some suggest, replace the House of Lords with a second chamber full of randomly-selected representative voters? Those in favour of citizen juries in politics, as well as in the governance of public institutions, believe they can provide greater democratic legitimacy and lead to better decisions, through a combination of lived experience and expert guidance. Those against citizen juries say they undermine a fundamental democratic principle: one person, one vote.

Chair: Michael Buerk Panel: Matthew Taylor, Inaya Folarin-Iman, Tim Stanley and Mona Siddiqui Witnesses: Sir Simon Jenkins, Fiona Rutherford, Anna Coote and Tom Simpson Producer: Dan Tierney.

The Dutch historian Rutger Bregman, whose BBC Reith Lectures start this week, is calling for a moral revolution to change our societies for the better, charting how small groups of committed people – abolitionists, suffragettes, and temperance activists – have brought about positive social change.

Politics, Bregman argues, is in trouble in an age of apathy and backsliding democracy: “The moral rot runs deep across elite institutions of every stripe”, he says, “if the right is defined by its shameless corruption, then liberals answer with a paralyzing cowardice”.

So where might our moral salvation come? What are the deep values that underpin our contrasting political worldviews – left and right – and which should we look to prioritise now? Does any part of the political spectrum have the greatest claim to morality?

Chair: Michael Buerk Panel: Matthew Taylor, James Orr, Mona Siddiqui and Tim Stanley. Witnesses: Tim Montgomerie, Eleanor Penny, Joanna Williams, Paul Mason Producer: Dan Tierney.

The Channel 4 documentary, ‘Hitler's DNA: Blueprint of a Dictator’ has carried out a controversial genetic analysis of the Nazi leader. The test shows "very high" scores - in the top 1% - for a predisposition to autism, schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. This not a diagnosis, however, and there have been concerns about whether such speculation stigmatises these conditions.

While we shouldn’t seek to explain a person’s moral character and actions simply through genetics, there are many other aspects of our lives we can’t control, and which can nevertheless influence our behaviour and the judgements of others. These, include our upbringing and the circumstances we happen to be placed in (war, oppression, abuse) as well as the outcome of our actions (e.g. whether someone happens get away drink-driving, or not). If this is all a question of moral luck, how much should it be taken into consideration in our judgments of others? And where does that leave human agency, responsibility and culpability?

One view is that moral blame should be based solely on someone’s intentions and the choices they make. Moral responsibility, it’s argued, rests on rational will, and unlucky life chances should not excuse bad or criminal behaviour. However, in the criminal justice system, mitigating circumstances, while not excusing bad behaviour, are presented to reduce the severity of a person's culpability.

How do we untangle what is in someone’s control, and what is a matter of luck, when it comes to the combinations of nature and nurture that make up the people we are? If we focus too much the things we can’t control, would we ever be able to make any moral judgments at all? Or should we think more about the presence of moral luck in our everyday lives and work harder to understand rather than blame?

Chair: Michael Buerk Panel: Matthew Taylor, Sonia Sodha, Jonathan Sumption and Inaya, Folarin-Iman. Witnesses: Kirsty Brimelow, Peter Bleksley, Susan Blackmore and David Enoch. Producer: Dan Tierney

This year’s John Lewis Christmas advert puts an emotional focus on a father-son relationship. It shows a dad and his teenage boy struggling to put their feelings into words. It points to what many observe as a wider crisis in fatherhood. Numerous studies suggest that an involved father significantly improves a child's life chances. However, in the UK, a teenager is more likely to own a mobile phone than live with their dad, according to a 2025 report from the Centre for Social Justice.

The reasons are complex. Traditionalists cite changing gender roles leading to conflicting societal expectations on men and a confusion of male identity. Progressives suggest the pressure on dads to be strong for their family, both financially and emotionally, makes it difficult for them to demonstrate vulnerability, and that leads to guilt, stress and burnout. Youth workers report how the lack of a male role model at home can make space for other damaging influences - in the real world and online, in gangs and in the “manosphere” - pushing a very narrow definition of masculinity, and begetting more ill-equipped fathers.

What should be the role of a father, practically, emotionally and morally? How, if at all, should it be different from that of the mother? Do we expect too much or too little of fathers? Do children always need fathers in their lives? How should we address the ‘rinse-and-repeat’ cycle of absent fathers?

Chair: Julie Etchingham Panel: Carmody Grey, Giles Fraser, Anne McElvoy and James Orr. Witnesses: Tony Rucinski, Genevieve Roberts, Anton Noble, Ed Davies. Producer: Dan Tierney.

Later this month, millions of demonstrators are due to take to the streets across the USA for a second time, under the banner “No Kings”. Organisers say, “America has no kings, and the power belongs to the people”. They are mobilizing to protest against what they see as democratic backsliding during Trump’s second presidency.

Faith in democracy has been shaking all over the world. Recent Pew research suggests that, since 2017, public dissatisfaction with democracy far outweighs satisfaction across 12 high-income countries, including the UK, France and Germany. There are different interpretations of what’s causing this, and how to fix it.

Some observers think that Trump’s more controversial policies – from DOGE to attacks on elite institutions to the dismantling of DEI programmes – could have been inspired by the ideas of Curtis Yarvin, a computer engineer turned political theorist. He's known for founding an anti-democracy philosophical movement called ‘The Dark Enlightenment’, dismissing America's democratic values and instead calling for the return of an absolute monarchy, run by a 'CEO' figure.

Are democratic values a fiction, designed to prop up the elites? Or are they the only safeguard we have against tyranny?

Chair: Michael Buerk Panel: Carmody Grey, Ash Sarkar, Anne McElvoy and Inaya Folarin-Iman Witnesses: Curtis Yarvin, Mike Wendling and Andrés Velasco Producers: Dan Tierney and Peter Everett

*This is a special episode of the Moral Maze recorded at ‘How The Light Gets In’ philosophy and music festival: https://howthelightgetsin.org/festivals

Prime Minister Kier Starmer has described the UK’s formal recognition of a Palestinian state as a “moral duty”, saying the change in policy would, "revive the hope of peace and a two-state solution". The rising number of UN members following suit this week, marks a turning point in their approach to Israel since it began its war against Hamas in Gaza, following the October 7th atrocities. In that time, tens of thousands have been killed and more than one million displaced by Israel's military offensive. Why is Palestinian statehood recognition a ‘moral duty’ now, as opposed to decades ago? Does it put pressure on Israel to push for a ceasefire or does it reward terrorism? Does it represent moral leadership or gesture politics and hypocrisy?

The Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that he had long opposed a Palestinian state because it would constitute “an existential danger to Israel”. Meanwhile, over a century of colonial legacies, wars, and failed diplomatic endeavours has led to scepticism that Palestinians’ aspirations for equality and freedom can ever be achieved. To what extent is the recognition of Palestine a moral priority in such a long and intractable conflict between two peoples who have competing claims to land, and who see the other as a threat?

Chair: Michael Buerk Panel: Matthew Taylor, Giles Fraser, Mona Siddiqui and Tim Stanley. Producer: Dan Tierney

Graphic details of Charlie Kirk’s death have been almost unavoidable on social media in recent days. Similarly, shocking footage of an unprovoked knife attack on 23-year-old Iryna Zarutska on a train in Charlotte, North Carolina last month, has been widely circulated. Add to that the videos coming out of Gaza, Ukraine or Sudan. Seeing such images changes us. We can’t unsee them. They shock us, anger us, frighten us, stir our empathy, shift our moral compass.

Do we have a moral duty to watch real-life violence order to gain a deeper understanding of a situation? For example, would George Floyd’s death have had the same imaginative power if it hadn’t been filmed? Or is the truth-seeking instinct sometimes misplaced, driven by morbid curiosity and voyeurism, risking desensitisation, compassion fatigue or, conversely, chronic anxiety and stress? Do such stark images give us a moral anchor in a storm of spin and misinformation, or are we in danger of missing important context and using the intimately personal moment of a human death as a weapon in a heated political arena? With social media moderators being cut and TV news channels under pressure to beat the competition for pictures, what does the choice to publish and consume ever more extreme content say about us, and the dignity of those whose lives and deaths we are a witness to?

When should we choose to see or not to see – to know or not to know?

Chair: Michael Buerk Panel: Giles Fraser, Sonia Sodha, James Orr and Tim Stanley. Witnesses: Paul Conroy, Hilda Burke, Jamie Whyte and Rik Peels. Producer: Dan Tierney.

The party conference season kicked off with claims and counter claims about the viability of Nigel Farage’s proposals for government. One issue that unites Reform and Kemi Badenoch’s Conservatives is scrapping the 2050 net zero target, echoing US President Donald Trump's pledge to "drill, baby, drill" and embark on new oil and gas exploration.

This is a turbulent time in international politics. The prospect of achieving a global consensus on climate action seems a forlorn hope. What’s more, critics of the UK net zero target argue that the costs will cause a decline in living standards for little overall benefit.

Forget economic arguments: what is the moral thing to do in the face of a warming planet, rising sea levels, more extreme weather, food and water insecurity, and human displacement?

Readers of Immanuel Kant might be tempted to invoke his ‘categorical imperative’, a moral rule that says you should act in a way that you would want to apply to everyone, regardless of your personal desires or the potential outcomes of your actions. In climate terms, it means pursuing net zero as a moral good in itself. Utilitarian ethics, however, says that the right action is the one producing the most happiness and the least unhappiness for the greatest number of people. Therefore, it could be argued that the detrimental consequences of pursuing net zero in the UK, combined with its questionable global benefit, make it immoral.

Is ‘net zero’ a moral pursuit?

Chair: Michael Buerk Panellists: Matthew Taylor, Ella Whelan, Giles Fraser and Anne McElvoy. Witnesses: Maurice Cousins, Alice Evatt, Tony Milligan and Sorin Baiasu. Producer: Dan Tierney

One story has been dominating the news for several weeks: immigration. Whether it’s debates about how to stop the small boats, protests outside asylum hotels, speeches pledging mass deportations or balaclavad ‘patriots’ painting red crosses on roundabouts, there’s been no shortage of reporting and impassioned opinions on the subject. It is no doubt an important issue for many people, but is it as big as our perception of it?

‘Media’ comes from the Latin word medius, meaning "middle". It is a form of communication which mediates between our perception of the world and reality. Print and broadcast media are governed by codes of practice which prohibit the distortion of truth through the publication of inaccurate or misleading information. But are there more subtle ways in which the media can influence public opinion, creating a feedback loop of ‘newsworthiness’?

Defenders of print journalism contend that it takes its news priorities and agenda from real public concern and real events of objective importance. Journalists and columnists may put a spin on them, but their concern is to report and dramatise, not to distort. Critics of the papers – particularly the right-wing press – believe they have their own political axes to grind, and they set the collective news agenda while having an interest in stirring public anger via commercial ‘clickbait’. Even the BBC has had its impartiality scrutinised by those who believe it has given undue prominence to Nigel Farage (who is currently experiencing a surge in the polls) in its political coverage for more than a decade. In that time, however, social media has completely changed how we consume the news. Mainstream media, for all its faults, has a process of accountability when its deemed to have made errors of editorial judgment. Whereas social media algorithms are designed to promote discontent above fact-checking.

On balance, does the media reflect or exacerbate public disquiet?

Chair: Michael Buerk Panellists: Inaya Folarin Iman, Tim Stanley, Mona Siddiqui and Matthew Taylor. Witnesses: Zoe Gardner, Paul Baldwin, George Monbiot and Baroness Tina Stowell MBE.

Producer: Dan Tierney.

The decision of OnlyFans and Instagram to ban the porn star Bonnie Blue, who engaged in sequential sex with more than a thousand men in 12 hours, indicates the strength of the backlash of disapproval to the stunt. The reaction of many people has been what the psychologist Jonathan Haidt calls 'moral bafflement', the idea that most of us instinctively condemn some behaviours without being able to say why they are wrong. Western morality says, “don’t hurt other people”, but Bonnie Blue arguably hurt nobody. This was understood to be safe sex between consenting adults (although the psychological or social impact is harder to determine). Others might form their judgments based on values within sacred texts, but religion is no longer the moral and cultural force it once was.

How much attention should we pay to our knee-jerk sense of right and wrong when judging the actions of other people? Evolutionary psychologists describe how the emotion of disgust was a survival mechanism against the spread of disease. Thus, ritual purity, enforced by religious edict, was vital for the moral and spiritual life of our ancestors. But does disgust still carry moral weight in a modern, secular, and technologically advanced society, or is it merely an evolutionary hangover?

Just because we think something is wrong, how do we know that it is? And do we have the right, as a society, to translate our instinctive disapproval into prohibition? What is the moral value of disgust? Chair: Michal Buerk

Panellists: Ash Sarkar, Tim Stanley, Anne McElvoy and Matthew Taylor.

Witnesses: Stacey Clare, Julie Bindel, Jussi Suikkanen, John Haldane.

Producer: Dan Tierney

The Bank of England has been accused of being the 'Bank of Wokeness' after proposing to cut historical figures from banknotes. Images of Winston Churchill, Jane Austen and Alan Turing could be replaced by images of themes such as nature, innovation, or key events in history. It raises the possibility of British birds, bridges, or bangers and mash featuring on the next series of £5, £10, £20 and £50 notes and would take us down the route favoured by the Euro which feature many an imaginary structure or window. But what do we lose when we potentially erase these historical figures from a place in our pocket? Are they problematic figures who are essentially divisive? Or are we discarding important figures who achieved greatness and still embody moral values? Is the concept of heroism one we need to reject altogether or do stories of human endeavour still represent the best way to promote culture and identity?

PANEL: Anne McElvoy, Ash Sarkar, Matthew Taylor, Tim Stanley

WITNESSES:

Paul Lay, Historian Maddy Fry, Writer and Journalist Professor Simon Goldhill, Historian Professor Ellis Cashmore

CHAIR Michael Buerk PRODUCER: Catherine Murray ASST PRODUCER: PETER EVERETT PRODUCTION CO-ORDINATOR: Pete Liggins EDITOR: Tim Pemberton

Are we at risk of becoming “an island of strangers”? The Prime Minister, backtracking on many fronts, has apologised for the phrase - he says he hadn’t read it properly before he said it – but he’s backed a grand-sounding Independent Commission that’s now at work to fix a society it says is a “tinderbox of division”. Is it? Social attitude surveys suggest we’re one of the most tolerant countries on earth. What do we mean by social cohesion? Is it something wider than community cohesion? What about the class divisions? Is it important for us all to mix with each or a natural human instinct to cleave to those who are like you? Is social cohesion a moral good in itself? And is ‘getting on with each other’ something that can be achieved by government fiat?

PANELLISTS: INAYA FOLARIN-IMAN, LORD JONATHAN SUMPTION, PROF MONA SIDDIQUI, SONIA SODHA WITNESSES: MATTHEW SYED, Journalist SIMON LEVINE from ODI, a global affairs think tank JULIE SIDDIQI, Community relations consultant RAVI GURUMURTHY, CEO of NESTA, the UK innovation foundation for social good Chaired by Michael Buerk

PRODUCER: Catherine Murray ASST PRODUCER: Peter Everett EDITOR: Tim Pemberton

ID cards are back on the political agenda, digital this time, being pushed by an influential group of Labour MPs, and – surveys suggest – public opinion, which is increasingly worried about illegal immigration and benefit fraud. Time was, when privacy was a free-born Briton’s birthright and a policeman asking for your papers anathema, the mark of foreign dictatorships. We live in a different world now where even your household gadgets are capable of gathering information on you. Is privacy out of date, or a moral good that’s the basis of freedom? Can we no longer tell the state – or Big Tech – to mind their own business, and does it matter?

WITNESSES: Kirsty Innes, Director of Technology at Labour Together Rebecca Vincent, Interim director of Big Brother Watch Dr Hazem Zohny, University of Oxford Tiffany Jenkins, Cultural Historian

PANELLISTS: Rev Dr Giles Fraser Anne McElvoy Lord Jonathan Sumption Matthew Taylor

Chaired by Michael Buerk Producer: Catherine Murray Assistant Producer: Peter Everett Editor: Tim Pemberton

The National Health Service is at a crossroads. Systemic pressures are lengthening hospital waiting times. Resources are finite. That’s why the government is coming up with a 10 year plan to make the NHS ‘fit for purpose’. But what is the ethical purpose of the NHS? The ethical ambition has always been that everyone, regardless of their background, should have equal access to healthcare. It’s seen as a moral triumph of civilization and political suicide to meddle with it. But when we look at the statistics about the effectiveness of care alongside other comparative countries – the cancer survival rates, premature deaths from cardiovascular disease, and the disparities of life-expectancy according to UK postcode – is it time to question this foundational principle? This is not simply a matter of which funding model works best. It is fundamentally ethical. For example, rather than focussing on equality of access to healthcare, should the goal instead be the equality of health outcomes across society? In other words, should we prioritise care for the most disadvantaged patients? Or would doing so be addressing a symptom and not the cause of deeper intersecting inequalities? Practically, it’s a question of who gets treated first. Philosophically, it’s a collision between competing notions of equality and fairness. Should we care more about equality of outcome – being equally healthy – or equality of access – treating everyone the same? What is the ethical purpose of the NHS?

Michael Buerk chairs a special debate at the Nuffield Trust Summit 2025.

Producer: Dan Tierney Editor: Tim Pemberton

Panel: Mona Siddiqui Tim Stanley Matthew Taylor Inaya Folarin-Iman

Witnesses: Kiran Patel Sheena Asthana Tony Milligan Jamie Whyte

Self-defence, as a justification for war, is much more difficult to argue if you strike the first blow. The Israelis say their devastating pre-emptive strike on Iran is a special, truly existential, case. A regime, long committed to their destruction was, according to Israel, within weeks of developing nuclear weapons, just one of which could effectively wipe out their state and most of its citizens. How far does that justify the abandonment of diplomacy, the targeting of leaders, the collateral damage and death? And, by the way, why is it ok for some countries to have The Bomb- and not others?

Witnesses: Sir Richard Dalton, Jake Wallis Simons, Prof Mary Kaldor, Prof Ali Ansari

Panellists: Carmody Grey, Giles Fraser, Inaya Folarin-Iman , Mona Siddiqui

Presenter: Michael Buerk Producer: Catherine Murray Assistant Producer: Peter Everett Editor: Tim Pemberton

There’s been a fair amount of focus on the concept of pronatalism recently and debate over whether it is left or right wing for governments to introduce policies that encourage women to have more babies. Others argue that the matter is too big to be consumed by the culture wars.

This week, the United Nations Population Fund issued its strongest statement yet on fertility decline, warning that hundreds of millions of people are not able to have the number of children they want, citing the prohibitive cost of parenthood and the lack of a suitable partner as some of the reasons affecting birth rates across the world.

For a country in the developed world to increase or maintain its population, it needs a birth rate of 2.1 children per woman on average. Last year in the UK, it fell to 1.4. Like many developed nations, women are having fewer babies, which poses economic problems as countries face the impact of both aging and declining populations, and a smaller workforce in relation to the number of pensioners.

Why are people in richer nations choosing to have fewer babies? Has parenthood had a bad press? Is it too expensive to have kids or do people just wait too long to tick off life goals before they realise their fertility window has closed?

And is it manipulative for governments to encourage women to have more children? For some, a low birth rate is the sign of a civilised society where women have reproductive autonomy. Is there a moral duty to have children?

PRESENTER Michael Buerk PANELLISTS Ash Sarkar, Giles Fraser, Mona Siddiqui, James Orr GUESTS Caroline Farrow, Prof Anna Rotkirch, Prof Lisa Schipper, Sarah Ditum PRODUCER Catherine Murray ASSISTANT PRODUCER Peter Everett EDITOR Tim Pemberton

Almost the first thing the newly chosen Pope Leo XIV did was to warn of the dangers of Artificial intelligence, of technological advance outstripping human wisdom. AI promises unapparelled efficiency, streamlined lives, complex problems solved in milliseconds. But will it make humans redundant literally and metaphorically? Will it hijack creativity? Will it imprison us in our prejudices? Will it destroy the concept of objective truth? AI: Promise or Peril? was recorded at The Hay Literary Festival

Witnesses: Dr Kaitlyn Regehr, author of Smartphone Nation: Why We're All Addicted to Our Screens and What You and Your Family Can Do About It Marcus Du Sautoy, author, mathematician and Simonyi Professor for the Public Understanding of Science at the University of Oxford, Dorian Lynskey Sir Nigel Shadbolt, longterm researcher of AI, Professor in Computer Science at Oxford University and government advisor.

Panellists: Anne McElvoy James Orr Mona Siddiqui Matthew Taylor Presenter: Michael Buerk

Producers: Catherine Murray & Peter Everett Production Co-ordinators: Brigid Harrison-Draper &Sam Nixon Thanks to Lucy Newman and the whole team at Hay.

President Trump has imposed tariffs on all America’s trade; China has hit back; other nations, including our own, are working out how to cope with what Sir Keir Starmer has called a “new world” governed by “deals and alliances” rather than rules. In this crisis, we have turned to the economists, who argue about percentages. But shouldn't we be asking – what is the moral thing to do?

Trump’s ‘MAGA’ project always said it wanted tariff barriers to revive US industry and rebalance world trade; the American voters chose that strong medicine; now they – and the rest of the world – must swallow it. The first question is not whether it will work; time will tell. The first question is: given the consequences for the whole world, does Trump have a moral right to exercise that mandate?

The second question is the one that confronts Britain, and all the other nations that have been reliant (perhaps too reliant) on trade and co-operation with America. It is not about numbers but about morality. The three most influential economic philosophers in history – Adam Smith, Karl Marx and J.M.Keynes – reached different conclusions about it.

Is free trade a moral good?

Chair: Michael Buerk Producers: Peter Everett and Dan Tierney Editor: Tim Pemberton

Panel: Anne McElvoy Ash Sarkar Matthew Taylor James Orr

Witnesses: Mariana Mazzucato Hamish McRae Maxwell Marlow Sir Dieter Helm

Last year was a record-breaking year for poetry sales. In the age of smartphone ‘doom scrolling’, that might seem surprising. But the boom is in part due to social media. The bestseller is the Scottish poet Donna Ashworth, who has been described as "a cheerleader of Instapoetry". Her verse is short, direct and shared online. She has both brought poetry to a new audience and prompted a backlash. According to the cultural commentator James Marriott, “The sales of such books say as much about a public appetite for poetry as the sales of “Live Laugh Love” signs do.” But if poetry is, according to Robert Frost, “when an emotion has found its thought, and the thought has found words”, then who is to say what “counts” as poetry or any other form of art? Meanwhile, Arts Council England, it is claimed, has lost the confidence of the classical music world. ACE has been criticised for its “Let’s Create” strategy, which aims to ensure access to the arts for all. John Gilhooly, the artistic director of Wigmore Hall, says this has led to the council “judging community events and the great artists of the world by the same criteria”. The tension between so-called ‘high art’ and popular culture is as old as the hills. Is it wrong to assert that some works of art are more culturally valuable than others? Or should art be judged on how it is perceived, appreciated and valued by its audience? After all, what gives art value? Does cultural elitism damage or protect art?

Chair: Michael Buerk Producer: Dan Tierney Assistant producer: Peter Everett Editor: Tim Pemberton

Panel: Ash Sarkar Anne McElvoy Mona Siddiqui Tim Stanley.

Witnesses: James Marriott Henry Normal J. J. Charlesworth Barbara Eifler

The Netflix drama ‘Adolescence’ has prompted a national conversation about a ‘crisis of masculinity’. In a society where gender roles are changing, progressive attitudes are in tension with traditional ideas about male behaviour.

Studies suggest Gen Z men and women are more divided than those of any other generation on questions about feminism, gender roles and women’s rights. Meanwhile, teachers highlight the alarming prevalence of misogyny in schools, influencers can be influential than parents, and social media algorithms amplify misogynistic content to teens. This is happening at the same time as rising rates of depression, anxiety, and a higher likelihood of suicide among young men.

Traditional ideas about ‘manliness’ - strength, dominance, independence, and emotional stoicism - are seen in many contexts as inappropriate and harmful – both to men and women. While the feminist movement and women’s advances in education and the workplace, for example, are a mark of social progress, some believe they have also challenged men’s sense of purpose in a way that has perhaps been overlooked. Others think this analysis is dangerous because it doesn’t apply to all men, it sets up men's mental health and wellbeing in opposition to the opportunities of women, and denies some men the agency to make the right choices. At the same time, it can be uncomfortable to discuss how men and women are different – physically and psychologically – and how they might have different and complementary roles.

Do we need to re-define or reclaim masculinity? What’s wrong with men?

Chair: Michael Buerk Producer: Dan Tierney Assistant Producer: Peter Everett Editor: Tim Pemberton

Panel: Ash Sarkar Tim Stanley Matthew Taylor Anne McElvoy

Witnesses: Clare Ford Brendan O'Neill James Bloodworth John Amaechi

Proposed new guidance from the Sentencing Council for England and Wales – which is due to come into effect in April – would make the ethnicity, faith or personal circumstances of an offender a bigger factor when deciding whether to jail them. The independent body is responsible for issuing guidelines “to promote greater transparency and consistency in sentencing”.

Official figures show that offenders from ethnic minorities consistently get longer sentences than white inmates for indictable offences. Supporters of the guidance see it as an important correction of implicit bias within the justice system, leading to the most effective balance of punishment and rehabilitation for the individual. But critics – including the Justice Secretary – are concerned it will create "two-tier justice". As Shabana Mahmood put it: "As someone who is from an ethnic minority background myself, I do not stand for any differential treatment before the law, for anyone of any kind". How much should judges consider an offender’s background?

Questions about the “fairness” of sentencing are the symptom of a wider disparity within the justice system: the fact that black and Muslim men are disproportionately represented in the prison population, and how that might be addressed. How much is it the mark of a “rigged” society, which traps multiple generations in poverty and deprivation? How much is it about family and community dysfunction and a lack of role models?

How just is our justice system?

Chair: Michael Buerk Producer: Dan Tierney Assistant Producer: Peter Everett Editor: Tim Pemberton

Panel: Ash Sarkar Tim Stanley Inaya Folarin-Iman Giles Fraser

Witnesses: Kirsty Brimelow Henry Hill Sheldon Thomas Rakib Ehsan

Sir Keir Starmer has called the current benefits system unsustainable, indefensible and unfair, and said it was discouraging people from working while producing a "spiralling bill". The Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood has said there is a “moral case” to cut the welfare budget ahead of the Chancellor’s Spring Statement. Spending on sickness benefits, including a rise in mental health disability claims since the pandemic, is forecast to increase to around £100bn before the next general election. Ministers have complained that people are incentivised to be out of work, encouraging some to "game the system". Poverty charities have expressed deep concerns about what they see as the disproportionate impact of any cuts on the poorest and most vulnerable.

Debates around welfare spending can never escape the language of morality, in often moralising terms. Phrases like ‘benefits scroungers’ are emotive and can encourage knee-jerk judgment. To paraphrase words ascribed to both Thomas Jefferson and Ghandi: the measure of a society is how it treats its weakest members.

But welfare is morally complex. While it is an important safety net, at what point does it disempower people to pursue a better life, encourage passivity rather that self-reliance, and foster self-entitlement over personal responsibility? Even if we could discern these things, we live in an imperfect world. Life is a lottery. What some perceive as ‘lifestyle’ choices, others argue are often made from few options, due to entrenched structural inequalities. How much is this really a matter of nurturing individual moral character and virtue? Is there a moral case for cutting welfare?

Chair: Michael Buerk Producer: Dan Tierney Assistant producer: Peter Everett Editor: Chloe Walker

Panel: Anne McElvoy, Giles Fraser, Sonia Sodha and James Orr.

Witnesses: Grace Blakeley, Tim Montgomerie, Miro Griffiths and Jean-Andre Prager.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has expressed his "gratitude" for US military support. It comes after the heated exchange in the Oval Office, where President Trump and Vice-President Vance told Zelensky he was not thankful enough. Cicero referred to gratitude as "the parent of all virtues", but like all virtues, it plays a complex role in our moral life.

Ancient philosophers like the stoics and modern positive psychologists agree that recognising what we have rather than longing for what we don’t have can reduce anxiety and foster happiness. Expressing gratitude, they say, helps to build trust and deepens bonds between people, creating a sense of community and reciprocity. In difficult times, gratitude can provide perspective, allowing individuals to focus on what matters rather than being overwhelmed by hardship.

Gratitude sceptics, however, think that a perpetual state of thankfulness might not be that good for us. An over-emphasis on gratitude, they suggest, can make people passive and discourage ambition or protest in situations that demand change in our lives. The idea of a ‘thankless task’ implies that the absence of gratitude is sometimes necessary for virtue to exist. When gratitude is socially expected, it can damage relationships; it can feel transactional and forced rather than sincere, making it a tool for control and manipulation rather than authentic appreciation.

Whether expressing thanks is healthy or not depends on the circumstances, which requires discernment. So when should we be grateful?

Chair: Michael Buerk Producer: Dan Tierney Assistant producer: Peter Everett Editor: Tim Pemberton

Panel: Mona Siddiqui Tim Stanley Sonia Sodha Anne McElvoy

Witnesses: Annette Kellow Mark Vernon Susie Masterson Julian Baggini

Three years on from the invasion of Ukraine, President Trump has called President Zelensky a 'dictator', leaving many to conclude that the US has sided with Russia. We have entered a new phase of an already unstable global order. Keir Starmer meets Donald Trump this week. How should Britain respond? Emphasise friendship in the hope of gaining influence in Washington or stand up to Trump in the knowledge that it will damage relations?

On Ukraine, there are those who argue it’s clear cut: Putin is the dictator, Zelensky is a war hero, and sometimes we have to fight for our values no matter the sacrificial cost. But Trump’s supporters believe ending the war is the moral priority, and if peace comes at the cost of land, that’s a deal worth doing.

But History tells us that realpolitik only gets us so far. Bluntly, Trump’s detractors don’t see him as a rational actor on the world stage, pointing to his plan for Gaza. Domestically, they say, he’s behaving like an authoritarian dictator. To his followers, Trump is an important disrupter who is shaking America and the West out of its complacency.

Where should lines in the sand be drawn in negotiations? When is it better to be pragmatic than principled? When should moral conviction trump realpolitik?

Chair: Michael Buerk Producer Dan Tierney Assistant producer: Peter Everett Editor: Tim Pemberton

Panel: Giles Fraser Mona Siddiqui Inaya Folarin-Iman Tim Stanley

Witnesses: Mykola Bielieskov Peter Hitchens Brian Klaas Jan Halper-Hayes

Here are the instructions for your office Christmas party, issued by the Public and Commercial Services Union: “Sexual harassment and inappropriate behaviour are just as unacceptable at social events as they are in the workplace. This includes unwelcome comments, gestures or physical actions. Alcohol is not a defence for such conduct and employers are obligated to address these issues seriously.” This could be considered an example of Moral Managerialism - a philosophy of enforcing, by rules and regulations, behaviour that once was left to the individual’s sense of decency. Since human beings are fallible, is this a welcome institutional safety net or an attack on an individual’s agency to do the right thing? Philosophically, can – and should – we try to make people better behaved? There’s one approach we haven’t tried, but it’s exciting some scientists. It’s called ‘moral bio-enhancement’ – basically a drug that can make you good, a do-as-you-would-be-done-by pill, a statin for the soul. If all you have to do, to be a good person, is obey the rules or take a tablet… can human virtue exist?

Chair: Michael Buerk Panel: Anne McElvoy, Mona Siddiqui, Giles Fraser and Inaya Folarin-Iman. Witnesses: Ros Taylor, Zoe Strimpel, Julian Savulescu and Andrew Peterson.

Producer: Dan Tierney Assistant Producer: Peter Everett Editor: Tim Pemberton

In every species, including homo sapiens, the family is nature’s way of passing inequality down the generations. The family gives us our genetic make-up and a large proportion of our training, education, socialisation and cultural attitudes. It may bequeath to us wealth or poverty. None of this is fair.

Should we get cross about silver spoons and livid about nepotism? We don’t seem to. Inheritance tax is deeply unpopular (not just with farmers). And it's not merely money that tilts the scales when a child is born. There's the where and when of it, there's parental character and competence, there are genetic pluses and minuses. How should we, as a society, address the unfairness that results from inherited advantage? And how can we know whether it’s made a difference? Everyone claims to want equality of opportunity. Some of us want to measure our success by equality of outcome; the rest of us say ‘dream on.’

Should we aim to eradicate or compensate for inherited inequality? Should we try to correct for the effects of genetic and environmental misfortune? Or should we just accept that, in the words of William Blake, 'Some are Born to sweet delight. Some are Born to Endless Night'?

Chair: Michael Buerk Panel: Tim Stanley, Ash Sarkar, James Orr and Mona Siddiqui Witnesses: Aaron Reeves, Ruth Porter, Will Snell, Edward Davies.

Producers: Dan Tierney and Peter Everett. Editor: Tim Pemberton

After decades of despotism, Syria is facing an uncertain but cautiously hopeful future - though many are sceptical about the sort of government that will replace the dynastic Assad regime. While Syria has endured 13 years of civil war, another shock has been the unravelling of South Korea, formerly a beacon of stability, with the president's short-lived attempt to declare martial law. And then there is Donald Trump looking to pardon the US Capitol rioters, who wanted to overthrow the government on January 6th 2021. Even in liberal democracies, it seems, power is above the law. So much for the moral superiority of democracy?

What does all this say about us? Surveys suggest democracy doesn't matter as much to younger generations. Strongman authoritarians abound and are admired across Europe and beyond. Meanwhile in the UK, the gap between the share of votes won in the 2024 general election and the share of Parliamentary seats is the largest on record.

Is democracy still the best, most efficient and most moral from of government?

Chair: Michael Buerk Panel: James Orr, Ella Whelan, Giles Fraser and Tim Stanley Witnesses: Sam Ashworth-Hayes, Rhiannon Firth, Robert Griffiths and Erica Benner.

Producer: Dan Tierney Assistant producer: Ruther Purser Editor: Tim Pemberton

The allegations about Gregg Wallace’s behaviour on set have been described as being part of a "toxic environment". Once primarily used in the domain of plants, arrows and chemicals, “toxic” - which is defined as “poisonous” – only relatively recently started being applied to workplaces and people: parents, siblings, neighbours, exes and co-workers.

Those who have experienced a toxic work culture or colleague might describe a deterioration in their personal and professional well-being – the causes of which may be difficult to define – or prove – on their own. While sexual harassment, racism, and bullying should be clearly understood, a toxic environment may involve more subtle things at play: a lack of trust, favouritism, unrealistic expectations or an atmosphere of negativity.

But what are we to make of a concept which hinges on how an aggrieved person feels rather than the defined behaviour of the perpetrator? Is it an important redress for those who have for too long suffered in silence – or an over-compensation which irredeemably labels the wrongdoers? What should – and shouldn’t – we be prepared to accept in a workplace or in a relationship? If a boss sets a negative tone in an office, due to their own pressures and stresses, does that make them “toxic”? When does an off-colour joke become “toxic”? Is it possible to detoxify cultures like the entertainment industry, which thrives on the egos of the “talent”? And when is it OK to cut off a “toxic” relative?

Chair: Michael Buerk Panel: Sonia Sodha, Konstantin Kisin, Matthew Taylor and Anne McElvoy Witnesses: Ben Askins, Joanna Williams, Becca Bland and Donald Robertson.

Producer: Dan Tierney Assistant producer: Ruth Purser Editor: Tim Pemberton

The debate around assisted dying exposes fundamental questions about our attitudes to death. We will all die. Nothing is more certain. But it’s not something most of us really think about, apart from superficially. We can often think of death as something that happens to other people. There’s a paradox – we are more distanced from death than our ancestors, yet we are exposed to it every day in the news and value it as a key component of art and entertainment. We can have a morbid fascination with death but a fear of confronting our own mortality.

While, fear, anxiety and avoidance are deeply human responses, are they good for us both psychologically and morally? Those advocating a “death positive” approach see honest conversations about death and dying as the cornerstone of a healthy society. In theory, thinking about your death should put your life into perspective and direct your actions towards things that are good for you and others. But is that necessarily the case? Should death ever be seen as anything less than a tragedy? During the pandemic, there were concerns about the subtle messaging around the ‘acceptability’ of some deaths over others. In conflict, repeated exposure to death causes a callus to form, where there may be less empathy for the dead as a survival mechanism for the living.

Does a greater openness and acceptance of death help us to live better lives? Or can losing the fear of death mean we lose something of what it means to be human? What is a healthy attitude to death?

Chair: Michael Buerk Panel: Matthew Taylor, Ash Sarkar, Konstantin Kisin and Anne McElvoy Witnesses: Charlotte Haigh, Anton Noble, Victoria Holmes, Teodora Manea.

Producer: Dan Tierney Assistant producer: Ruth Purser Editor: Gill Farrington and Chloe Walker.

Donald Trump has made some eyebrow-raising, some might say jaw-dropping, appointments to his top team. While a number of the appointees still need Senate approval, they all appear united by one thing – loyalty to Donald Trump.

Some consider loyalty to be a foundational virtue that is central to close friendships. Seneca, called it “the holiest virtue in the human heart”. It is more than simply “support” – it suggests a duty to support “come what may”. Others, however, think loyalty can enable controlling behaviour, hide self-interest, encourage tribalism and threaten independent thought. If a close friend violates your ethical code, to what extent should you stay loyal to them? Or should you only be loyal to the person you thought they were?

Outside the realm of inter-personal relationships, loyalty to an organisation, the government, the Crown or the Church can mean both faithfulness to its principles and deference to its hierarchy. Here, calling out the institution is both an act of betrayal and loyalty, depending on how it is viewed.

Do we value loyalty in our personal and professional lives any less than we did 50 years ago? And is that a good or a bad thing? Perhaps we just have a healthier perspective about who and what deserves our loyalty?

Is loyalty a virtue or a vice?

Chair: Michael Buerk Panel: Mona Siddiqui, Tim Stanley, Inaya Folarin-Iman and Giles Fraser Witnesses: Josie Stewart, Major General Tim Cross, Anouchka Grose, Tony Milligan.

Producer: Dan Tierney Assistant producer: Ruth Purser Editor: Gill Farrington

Celebrity chef Jamie Oliver has pulled his new children's book from the shelves after complaints that it stereotyped Indigenous Australians. Some First Nations leaders have called the book "offensive". Oliver says it was not his “intention".

This case raises philosophical questions about the role of intent in the way we act and in the way we judge the actions of others. If harm is measured by the impact of an action rather than the intention behind it, how much does the intention matter at all? The fact that the law distinguishes between murder and manslaughter suggests that intent is indispensable in assessing moral culpability. On the other hand, being tired or incompetent at the wheel of a car may result in a more deadly outcome than knowingly driving recklessly. In our everyday relationships, we all make excuses for our behaviour when we mess up, but what makes a good excuse – a work-deadline, a wailing infant, ignorance? More complicated still, how can we discern someone’s intent not to cause harm or offense, particularly if we don’t inhabit the same social or cultural reality?

Does intent matter? After all, you know what they say about the road to hell…

Chair: Michael Buerk

Panellists: Ash Sarkar, James Orr, Mona Siddiqui and Giles Fraser

Witnesses: Daniel Browning, Brendan O'Neill, Dr Paul Youngbin Kim, Professor Paulina Sliwa.

Producer: Dan Tierney Assistant producer: Ruth Purser

The tax increases on private schools, though long trailed, were among the most emotive measures in last week’s blockbuster budget, because they’re widely seen to be as much a moral issue as a question of politics or economics. It was a former Conservative education secretary, Michael Gove, who asked: why should the state support the already wealthy to buy advantage for their children? Others see it as an attack on aspiration and excellence, ”a vindictive piece of class warfare on parents who scrimp and save to pay fees”, according to Mr Gove’s former colleague David Davies. Taxing private schools – justice or spite? PANELLISTS: Ash Sarkar, Ella Whelan, Giles Fraser, Mona Siddiqui PRESENTER: Michael Buerk PRODUCER: Catherine Murray ASSISTANT PRODUCER: Ruth Purser EDITOR: Tim Pemberton

Overcrowded, understaffed and in disrepair, Britain’s prisons are in crisis. One of the first acts of the Labour government was to announce that thousands of prisoners would be let out early to make room for the next wave of inmates. The Scottish government has a similar scheme. Press photographs taken at prison gates show chortling convicts cheering the Prime Minister before climbing into luxury cars and heading off to celebrate.

Arguments rage between those who say we send too many offenders to prison (more, as a proportion of the population, than any other country in Europe) and those who say we don’t catch and punish enough criminals, so we need tougher policing and more jails.

Perhaps the prison crisis is a blessing in disguise, because it is stimulating new ideas. Initiatives are already under way that may develop into long-term solutions. Reformers want more sentences of community service, more curfews enforced by electronic tagging, more flexible parole used as a reward for good behaviour. They point out that the nations with most prisoners are also, by and large, the countries with most crime; in Britain, they say, lawbreaking flourishes in the absence of both deterrence and rehabilitation.

Our sentencing tariffs, criminologists insist, are incoherent and morally dubious; we are too hard on some offenders and too soft on others; we should rewrite the guidelines to distinguish more clearly between wicked criminals and hapless inadequates; most offenders need support, guidance and incentives to address their problems, not incarceration.

But that’s not what the voters tend to think, so it’s not what MPs have tended to support. The majority view has always been that prisons should be used to protect the public. What’s more, they should be unpleasant places, to express society’s disapproval of criminality, and sentences should be longer, because there has to be punishment as well as rehabilitation.

Lock ‘em up or let ‘em out?

The panel: Sonia Sodha, Giles Fraser, Inaya Folarin Iman, Matthew Taylor. Witnesses: Ayesha Nayyar, Scarlett Roberts, Peter Bleksley, Dr Hindpal Singh Bhui

“Dawn... and as the sun breaks through the piercing chill of night on the plain outside Korem, it lights up a biblical famine, now, in the 20th century...” Those words, spoken by Michael Buerk 40 years ago, pricked the world’s conscience, triggered an unprecedented humanitarian effort, led to Live Aid and spawned institutions like Comic Relief. Since then, more than a billion people around the world have climbed out of extreme poverty, although around 700 million people still live on less than $2.15 a day, according to the World Bank.

Times have changed. Not only is the media landscape vastly different, making competing demands on our attention, but also our attitudes to helping the poor around the world are different. The question is not simply whether we have a moral duty to help people in other countries, but HOW we should help them.

In a post-pandemic world, there are those who advance ever stronger arguments for ending poverty through debt cancellation, robust institutions and international co-operation. Critics of development aid, however, see it as wasteful, ineffective and enabling corruption: ‘poor people in rich countries subsidising rich people in poor countries’. Others view the sector as a legacy of European colonialism, citing Band Aid’s portrayal of Africa as emblematic of the ‘White saviourism’ ingrained in the system. Others, meanwhile, believe the best way to help people is to bypass institutions altogether, and give cash directly to individuals to make their own decisions about how to spend it.

40 years on from Michael Buerk’s landmark report from Ethiopia, how should we help the global poor?

Chair: Michael Buerk Producer: Dan Tierney Assistant producer: Ruth Purser

Panellists: Ash Sarkar Anne McElvoy Inaya Folarin Iman Carmody Grey

In recent weeks tens of thousands of protesters have taken to the streets in Spain’s most popular tourist destinations. From Málaga to Mallorca, Gran Canaria to Granada, locals are revolting against what they see as the hollowing out of their communities with the buying up of properties to turn them into short-stay holiday lets for people they argue don’t respect their locality, culture or language. UNESCO has described the situation as "totally out of balance".

On one level this is an argument about economics, but the implications are profoundly moral. People shouldn’t feel like second-class citizens in their own towns, but we also recognise the freedom to move, rest and discover. The affordability of travel makes mass tourism possible, but it’s lamented by those who see it as selfish, narcissistic and damaging to native cultures and the environment. And yet travel supposedly broadens the mind and the soul – a cultural exchange that can be a catalyst for self-improvement, make us more empathetic, and provide a livelihood for host communities.

Should foreign tourism be discouraged? Or if it’s mass tourism we’re worried about, what can we do about it without holidays becoming an elitist pursuit?

Producer: Dan Tierney Assistant producer: Ruth Purser

Panel: Giles Fraser Sonia Sodha Ash Sarkar Tim Stanley

Witnesses: Guillem Colom-Montero Jim Butcher Anna Hughes Emily Thomas

The past week of brutish, hate-filled riots has been a disturbing time for Britian’s minority communities. What started as a protest against the murder of three little girls in Southport has swept the country for days, fuelled by the spread of mis-information on social media.

The cause of the anger is starkly contested. For some, they are racist far-right agitators and opportunist thugs, whipped up by populist politicians and commentators. For others they represent a deeper unease about successive immigration and social policies which have left people feeling ignored, marginalised, even despised by politicians and mainstream media. The ideological divide is between those who see ‘diversity as strength’ and those who think unlimited tolerance breeds its own intolerance.

For all the images of burning cars, racist graffiti and violent looting, there is another side to the story: those who help in the clear up, who show solidarity with their Muslim neighbours, and who make clear their opposition to racist hatred.

What should we make of the riots? And, if there is more that unites us than divides us, what should we be doing to improve relations between communities?

Producer: Dan Tierney Assistant Producer: Ruth Purser

Chair: Michael Buerk

Panel: Ash Sarkar Konstantin Kisin Mona Siddiqui Tim Stanley

Witnesses: Matt Goodwin Ashraf Hoque Adrian Hilton Kieran Connell

One moment in the Olympics opening ceremony in Paris clearly touched a nerve: the tableau of mostly drag queens believed to be parodying Da Vinci’s ‘Last Supper’. Organisers have since denied this was the intention and apologised for the offense caused. Many commentators, including non-believers, declared it “blasphemous”, and “a denigration of Western culture”. While others, Christians among them, considered that response to be an over-reaction. Stepping back from the immediate and perhaps predicable outrage drawn along culture war lines, is the deeper question of what we consider to be ‘sacred’ and ‘profane’ in a largely secular Western society. What, if anything, is sacred? Does the idea only make sense in relation to the concept of God? Does it have a moral function or is it more about personal spirituality? Maybe nothing is sacred, since categorising something as such puts it beyond scrutiny? Or can the concept be widened, even secularised, to take in, for example, the idea of ‘profaning’ the natural world or hollowing out the things we hold to be of value by turning them into commercial transactions? Are the concepts of ‘sacred’ and ‘profane’ still important? And if so, what role do they have in the 21st century?

Producer: Dan Tierney Assistant producer: Ruth Purser

Panel: Anne McElvoy Giles Fraser Ash Sarkar Tim Stanley

Witnesses: Melanie McDonagh Andrew Copson Fergus Butler-Gallie Francis Young

The Modern Olympics were founded in 1896 by a Parisian with serious moral principles . Pierre De Coubertin even made up a word for it: Olympism: ‘a way of life based on the joy of effort ..and respect for universal fundamental ethical principles. He thought that sports at an international level could foster respect and peace between nations. This week as the Games get underway in De Coubertin’s city, athletes have been meeting to do just that, talk about the role that sport plays in building bridges. But how much does the modern games live up to these highminded ideals? For detractors, it’s a bloated megagames, always billions over overbudget that displaces communities and marginalises the excluded. What about nationalism and the place of the politics in the competition? The way De Coubertin conceived the idea with nations competing for international glory, means it’s impossible to put nationalism and politics aside. He insisted it was individuals, not countries in competition but the medal tables tell a different story. And the Olympics has often been the battleground to show the triumph of one ideology over another, particularly during the Cold War. Does the Olympics really promote peace as it’s goals suggest or is just ‘war minus the shooting’ as George Orwell wrote. Do the Olympics cause more harm than good? WITNESSES: Dr Shakiba Moghadam, Dora Pallis, Prof David Case Large, Prof David Papineau PANELLISTS:Giles Fraser, Anne McElvoy,Ash Sarkar, Mona Siddiqui Presenter: Michael Buerk Producer: Catherine Murray Assistant Producer: Ruth Purser Editor Tim Pemberton

The attempted assassination of former US president Donald Trump was a dark day for American politics. We don’t know whether the gunman was induced to kill - as some commentators have suggested - by the current political climate. Nevertheless, it appears that the line between passionate criticism and incitement to violence is becoming increasingly blurred. Words matter, but calls to curb speech beyond current laws are immediately met with opposition by those who see freedom of speech as essential to democracy.

And yet, the abuse and intimidation of politicians also threatens democracy. In the UK the government’s adviser on political violence, Lord Walney, has written to the Home Secretary saying there has been a "concerted campaign by extremists to create a hostile atmosphere for MPs within their constituencies to compel them to cave into political demands".

All parties seek to control the narrative through forceful language, hyperbolic rhetoric, and attacks on opponents, but when do words become dangerous? Politics is tribal, but when does tribalism become toxic?

If democracy is a system in which citizens – and tribes – can disagree without resorting to violence, what can be done to strengthen democracy? Is it possible to turn down the political heat without losing the passion?

PANEL: Mona Siddiqui Matthew Taylor Sonia Sodha Inaya Folarin Iman.

WITNESSES: Hannah Phillips - from the Jo Cox Foundation John McTernan - Political Secretary to UK PM Tony Blair, and Director of Communications for Australian PM Julia Gillard Brian Klass - Associate Professor in Global Politics at University College London Nicholas Gruen - policy economist and visiting professor at King's College London's Policy Institute

Producer: Dan Tierney Assistant Producer: Ruth Purser

The idea of when to step down is front and centre in American politics as 81 year old Joe Biden continues in the Presidential race despite concerns about his mental agility. His performance in a recent TV debate has sown doubt among supporters with polls suggesting some are losing faith in his abilities. ‘Pass the torch Joe’ said one placard as he declared his intention to keep going.

Are the elderly blcoking the young if they cling on to powerful and influence ? Does it skew society even more in favour of older people who seem to have had it better when it comes to pensions, homeownership and the opportunity to save money? Gerontologists say that society is ageist, that most people are not like Biden and will hit barriers to staying in work once they get older. That these barriers have to be cleared because as the population gets older we all need to stay in the workforce for longer.

Wisdom is said to come with age but if you have a fulfilling job, how do you check that you are still capable of continuing? Will those around you tell you the truth ? Is it pride that keeps elderly people in powerful positions, a sense that they are irreplacable, an unwillingness to give up something that defines them and take on another role. What's the morality of stepping down?

Witnesses: Dorothy Byrne, President of Murray Edwards College Mary-Kate Cary, Professor of Politics at the Univeristy of Virginia David Sinclair, Chief Executive of the International Longevity Centre Dr Erica Benner, Political Philosopher and Historian

Panel: Inaya Folarin-Iman, Mona Siddiqui, Matthew Taylor,Ella Whelan

Presenter: Michael Buerk Producer: Catherine Murray Assistant Producer: Ruth Purser Production Co-ordinator: Nancy Bennie Editor: Tim Pemberton

Who’s afraid of Virginia Woolf? Well, Camden Council for a start, who’ve put a QR code on her statue in Bloomsbury explaining that some of views and actions of the prototype feminist, widely regarded as one of the leading modernist writers of the 20th century, are now considered “offensive” and “unacceptable”. Funny how we look back for drama and moral clarity, not just judging the past by the prejudices of the present, but affecting to see in its messiness either inevitable progress, or relentless decline. More and more, it seems, history is a weapon with which to fight today’s battles. What should history teach us?

Witnesses: Professor Ada Palmer Professor Kehinde Andrews Dr Amanda Foreman Professor Robert Tombs

Panellists: Anne McElvoy Ash Sarkar Tim Stanley Matthew Taylor

Presenter: Michael Buerk

Producers: Catherine Murray & Peter Everett Assistant Producer: Ruth Purser Editor: Tim Pemberton

Taylor Swift fever has swept the UK week. She’s back in August and fans have been paying hundreds sometimes thousands to get their hands on seats through resale sites. It’s led us to think about the price and value of art and culture. St Thomas Aquinas came up with the ‘just price’ theory, that it is wrong to sell something for more than it is worth and charging more based on the need of the buyer is exploitative and sinful. Is that what is going on when punters are asked to stump up for a once in a lifetime experience? In Latin the word pretium means both value and price, but the two are not interchangeable when it comes to the arts. How can you put a price on a potentially transcendent experience, or the life changing power of art? Is that what makes good art and is that what is worth paying for? Do live events culture have a value in itself aside from the economic impact? What does it mean for society when people are priced out? Should governments pick up the bill to make sure everyone has access to the arts. Or are they just an indulgence, a nice way to spend your leisure time but not something deserving of funds in comparison to global problems like poverty or malaria.

Presenter: Michael Buerk Panel: Inaya Folarin-Iman James Orr Professor Mona Siddiqui Matthew Taylor

Witnesses:

Christopher Snowdon, Head of Lifestyle Economics at the IEA Professor Mel Jordan, Professor of Art and the Public Sphere, Coventry University Matt Reardon, Advisor at 80,000 Hours Professor Paul Gough, Vice Chancellor of the Arts University Bournemouth

Presenter: Michael Buerk Producer: Catherine Murray Assistant Producer: Ruth Purser Programme Co-ordinator Nancy Bennie & Pete Liggins Editor: Tim Pemberton

The way we grieve is changing and that is seen most starkly by the rise of the direct cremation and the no fuss funeral. I in 5 people of people opted for a direct cremation last year, a startling figure that’s risen 3 fold in 5 years. At it’s most basic the direct cremation means the final journey is purely functional. Body taken unaccompanied to an unknown crematorium. You can even get the ashes posted back through the letterbox. It's cheaper and you can mark the last hurrah with a party or memorial service or perhaps even nothing at all. What does this changing trend say about our respect for human dignity as a society or is this just another step in the removal of religion from the lives of a significant part of the population.

Only a quarter of people in the UK now want a religious funeral. The rise of direct cremation could also be a sign that mourners are throwing off the shackles of inherited tradition and religious belief to decide how they want to grieve. Direct cremations and DIY celebrations cut out the reality of death and if there’s no grieving at the graveside or standing in a crematorium what do we lose? There's another aspect to consider. The digital afterlife is one where someone never leaves. Grieftech can keep us in touch with AI loved ones . Instead of the finality of a funeral we could be conversing forever with the deceased. Do we need a final farewell?

Presenter: William Crawley Panellists: Anne McElvoy, James Orr, Matthew Taylor, Ella Whelan Witnesses: Rosie Millard, Dr Madeleine Pennington, Justin Harrison, Prof Linda Wheeler. Producer: Catherine Murray & Peter Everett Assistant Producer: Ruth Purser Editor: Rajeev Gupta

It will soon be time to vote in the General Election. A moment for us all to play our part in democracy. The theory is that politicians do their best to get elected, and then do all the right things so they are re-elected next time round. But in practice it can be difficult for governments to do what really needs to be done and still stay in power. A good example is climate change: There is a broad consensus that very urgent action is needed, and yet as the election nears, there's little from the major parties promising radical, decisive action, because they fear that voters don't really want it.

If liberal democracy can’t solve our problems, can it at least unite us around the principle that everyone’s point of view is worth hearing?  Well no, not any more.  For every listener to good old Radio 4 there are many more who get their news from social media and their opinions from their silo of friends.  Is it too cynical to suggest that voters are short-sighted, selfish and stubbornly wrong-headed?  And what about the quality of our leaders? Does anyone think our political system is serving up the nation's finest?

Some say our democracy isn’t democratic enough.  They fear excessive influence by lawyers, quangos, peers, and press barons.  Others applaud activists for challenging the worst excesses of a corrupt Commons. Three cheers, they say, for the unelected European Court of Human Rights and the judges who go easy on civil disobedience while thwarting the Home Office over asylum policy.

Do we still believe that our democracy is morally the least-worst system, when it seems incapable of producing long-term solutions to the most urgent problems?  Can we learn anything at all from authoritarian states that seem better at simply getting things done? In this special edition of the Moral Maze, recorded at the Hay Festival, we ask - what is the moral basis for claiming that our version of democracy is superior?  

Presenter: Michael Buerk Producers: Jonathan Hallewell, Peter Everett and Ruth Purser Editor: Tim Pemberton

Many people seem to be going off the idea of work. In the UK there are more than nine million people who are "economically inactive". Some are unemployed, some are students, others are not actively looking for a job or available to start work. There’s no shortage of jobs, but people are choosing not to take them. Many people decided not to return to work after the Covid lockdowns. They reduced their working hours or took early retirement, choosing the golf course over the office. For some, it’s a moral failure that so many are economically inactive. But why do we ascribe such virtue to the idea of work?

Politicians endlessly refer to "hard working families", perhaps inducing a sense of entitlement among workers, but in the process stoking resentment against those who don't work. Of course the economy relies on work - the wheels only turn when enough people are employed and paying tax.

Some believe the benefits system is to blame - if it's too comfortable not to work - then why bother? But there’s also the broader societal shift where people choose to work less, or not at all and live a more modest but perhaps less stressful life. Is this a laudable position, where people prioritise wellbeing over wealth and status, or a selfish one that denies the collective responsibility we all bear to contribute to society, through labour and taxes? The personal value of work might feel clearer if your job is rewarding and well paid, but less so if you’re on a low income. What is the moral value of work?

Presenter: Michael Buerk Producer: Jonathan Hallewell Assistant Producer: Ruth Purser Editor: Tim Pemberton

The Legacy Act in Northern Ireland provides a conditional amnesty for people who committed crimes during the Troubles, as part of a broader process of reconciliation. It’s an attempt to draw a line under events of the past, but it’s generated anger among the families of some victims, who feel they’ll be denied justice. When things go wrong, we need to find people to blame. Who’s responsible? Who should be punished? But might we do better if we were prepared to blame less – prioritising the truth, and forgive more? It's been proposed that the NHS adopts a no-blame system where staff don’t lose their jobs if they admit a failure, so the NHS learns quickly from its mistakes. The “no-blame culture” idea already exists in parts of the US aviation industry where people are encouraged, even praised, for owning up to mistakes that could cost lives. If blame means disgrace and the end of a career, it’s hardly surprising that people hide the truth about their own failure. How many of us would admit it quickly, if we discovered that a mistake at work had led to terrible consequences? More forgiveness might lead to greater openness and honesty. It could make it easier to avoid mistakes being repeated. But is it moral to forgive serious wrongdoing? Where is the justice in that? Surely the fear of blame is a powerful incentive for us all to do our jobs properly and avoid mistakes. Do we need more forgiveness – or less?

Presenter: Michael Buerk Producer: Jonathan Hallewell Assistant Producer: Ruth Purser Editor: Tim Pemberton

This week it emerged that Abdul Ezedi, hunted by police after an attack on a woman and her daughters with a corrosive liquid, was granted asylum after being convicted of sexual assault. He'd converted to Christianity, which could have put him at risk in his native Afghanistan. It’s just the latest story stirring debate about one of the most divisive issues of our times - immigration. In 2022 net migration hit a record 745,000. That’s more people than live in many of Britain’s biggest cities. Last week the Office for National Statistics predicted that the population could rise by nearly 10% between 2021 and 2036. The overwhelming majority of immigrants are legal. Economists are split on the costs and benefits of immigration. Some suggest that it could help tackle a demographic timebomb as our population ages. Britain also attracts some of the world’s most capable and highly qualified people, driving up our wealth-creating potential. National life is enriched culturally and socially. Isn’t there also a moral imperative to open our doors to people from countries troubled by war, oppression and climate change? But immigration has been high for decades without a clear electoral mandate. Some neighbourhoods have been transformed, raising concerns over social cohesion. It’s added to the pressure on housing and on creaking public services. Is it right that whole industries rely on immigrants willing to work for low pay – social care, health and hospitality? What is a desirable level of immigration? How should the balance be struck between the demands of our economy and social cohesion? What’s the moral case for immigration?

Presenter: Michael Buerk Producer: Jonathan Hallewell Assistant Producer: Linda Walker Editor: Tim Pemberton

It’s Valentine’s Day, when we celebrate romantic love, and is there anything more romantic than getting married? It’s the way all those old films end, after all the “will they, won’t they”, the couple finally tie the knot, the titles roll and we all enjoy the warm certainty that they’re sorted for life. What’s not to love about marriage? A lifelong commitment to care for each other... a solemn promise rooted in love… perhaps the foundation for starting a family. But for many, marriage is losing its gloss. The latest government figures suggest that the proportion of adults in England and Wales who are married has, for the first time, fallen below 50%. The rise of pre-nuptial agreements signals a change in levels of confidence about marriage. Is forever still forever? If it probably isn’t – then let’s just plan ahead for when it all goes wrong. We live much longer than in the past, so “til death us do part” is likely to be a very long time indeed. Perhaps it’s now unreasonable to expect a lifelong commitment. Short of that, are human beings even built for monogamy? If love dies in a marriage, should that be the end, or is marital commitment broader than that? There is some evidence that outcomes for children are better if parents are married, and some people see it as a fundamental building block of society. But is there a moral value to marriage? Is it a striving for what is finest about being human, the highest realisation of not just romantic love, but of that important social unit – the couple? Or just an old fashioned idea, rooted in outdated traditions, all wrapped up in a sentimental rose tinted fantasy?

Presenter: Michael Buerk Producers: Jonathan Hallewell and Peter Everett Assistant Producer: Ruth Purser Editor: Tim Pemberton

It emerged this week that scientists in South Korea have created a new kind of “meaty” rice, with high levels of protein.  The grains are packed with beef muscle and fat cells – all grown in a lab.  It’s just the latest of many meat-alternatives that are helping people to eat less meat.  Supermarkets are responding to public demand by offering an ever wider choice of plant-based foods.  But while we might not need to eat meat, most of us really enjoy it.

The goal posts are shifting in the age old debate about the morality of meat.  Whatever you think about the industrial breeding of animals, to be slaughtered and served up for our pleasure, there’s now another compelling argument for us to stop, or at least cut back – meat production significantly contributes to climate change. 

In the last decade, the number of vegans in the UK has increased steeply, but it’s still small. Estimates vary between about 2% and 3% of the population.  Many more are vegetarian, who avoid meat and fish, but eat dairy.  There are also flexitarians, who mainly choose a plant-based diet, but do occasionally eat meat.  

A moral argument that was once focused on whether humans have the right to exploit animals has become a broader debate that includes protecting the planet for future generations.  Some say it’s natural for humans to eat meat, indeed we have evolved to do so.  Others think it’s barbaric and the effects of the meat and dairy industry on the climate have made the argument for veganism overwhelming.   What’s the moral case for veganism?

Presenter: Michael Buerk Producer: Jonathan Hallewell Assistant Producer: Ruth Purser Editor: Tim Pemberton

The last week saw two contrasting examples of how societies treat killers. Valdo Calocane, who killed three people in Nottingham and tried to kill three more, avoided jail and was instead sent to a secure hospital for life because of his mental illness. One of the victim’s relatives protested that he “got away with murder”. Meanwhile in America, convicted murderer Kenneth Smith became the first person in the US to be executed using nitrogen gas.

Calocane’s charge was reduced to manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility because of his paranoid schizophrenia. The mother of one of his victims objected and complained that the families were not consulted. The Attorney General will be reviewing the sentence. It’s raised questions about what punishment is for: Is it for criminals – to provide the suffering they deserve, or reform them or deter future offenders? Or is it for victims – providing retribution and a sense of fairness to them? Victims are uniquely placed to appreciate the true impact of crime, so shouldn't their perspective have a greater weight in the judicial process? Would a bigger role for victims improve or hinder justice? What’s the purpose of punishment and can it ever provide justice for the most serious offenders, and their victims?

Presenter: Michael Buerk Producer: Jonathan Hallewell Assistant Producer: Linda Walker Editor: Tim Pemberton

It’s now nearly two years since Russia began its full scale invasion of Ukraine. Hopes that Ukraine might seize back its territory have been dashed, in a conflict that’s become deadlocked. At first it felt clear – the invasion is wrong, Putin must fail and be seen to fail, Ukraine’s defiance and bravery must be supported with everything its allies can provide. But as the death, destruction and bloodshed continues, with little sign of progress on either side, questions have been raised about how the war might ever be brought to an end.

How realistic is it for Ukraine to aspire to recapture all of its land, even Crimea? This year’s US presidential election has sharpened the focus: A Trump victory could threaten Ukraine’s future supply of arms. Some believe Russia would settle for the land it has already captured. If so, for Ukraine the bitter pill of ceding some 20% of its territory would at least bring the war to an end. But what’s the moral case for this? What’s the real value of peace – bought at the cost of justice? If western powers are seen to allow aggression to win the day in Ukraine, what message would that send to Vladimir Putin and other tyrants around the world? In Ukraine, what’s the moral case for ceding land for peace?

Presenter: Michael Buerk Producer: Jonathan Hallewell Assistant Producer: Linda Walker Editor: Tim Pemberton

Nearly a decade since MPs in Westminster voted against allowing terminally ill people to end their own life, assisted dying is climbing back up the political agenda. The Health and Social Care Committee is due to publish the first report of its kind on the subject after a year-long inquiry. Meanwhile, the Labour Leader Sir Keir Starmer has said there are "grounds for changing the law”, UK medical bodies continue to drop their opposition to the idea, and polls suggest around two-thirds of the public are in favour. Assisted dying raises profound moral questions which shake the core of our humanity. What does it mean to live – and to die – well? Is it more dignified to live with suffering or to die without it? If life is a sacred gift, and a marker of our equal dignity, should we, or anyone else, be able to control when it ends? If death is the most dignified response to suffering, how much suffering is too much, and who should decide?

Those who describe constant physical pain and a loss of bodily autonomy say that isn’t living at all. Should we be guided principally by compassion in these situations? Or does the good intention of irradicating suffering risk a chilling effect in which people are pressured into re-appraising whether their lives are worth living?

Is it time to allow assisted dying?

Panel: Mona Siddiqui, Inaya Folarin Iman, Matthew Taylor, Giles Fraser

Witnesses: Rabbi Dr Jonathan Romain, Professor Kevin Yuill, Zoe Hyatt Marley, Dr Miro Griffiths

Producer: Dan Tierney.

Is it moral to attach identity labels to ourselves and others? We often label people by nationality, gender, sexuality, ethnicity, religion, disability and many more categories. Is this a good and helpful or something that should be avoided?

The King has said that he wants the UK to be ‘a community of communities’, whereas some commentators have said that this is a call for permanent racial division in our society. Have the use of labels increased or diminished racism and other forms of prejudice society?

Labels can identify an individual as a member of a collective. Others want the unique identity of each of us to be respected for its differences from everyone else. If our loyalty should be to a group, should that group be defined by the colour of its skin, its politics or its passports?

Panellists: Giles Fraser, Sonia Sodha, Tim Stanley & Ash Sarkar Producer: Peter Everett

Should politicians respect, despise, accommodate or ignore public opinion?

Rishi Sunak is looking for a policy he can pop into place between now and the general election that will avoid a Labour landslide. He is being advised that abolishing inheritance tax will tickle the tummies of the Tory not-so-faithful. Meanwhile, Sir Keir Starmer wants government planners to “bulldoze” local objections when deciding where to put new housing developments. Can a government get away with ignoring public opinion? Well, it can in constituencies it’s never going to win.

Politics nowadays is not merely ‘guided’ by polls, surveys, databases and focus groups… it is controlled by them. But is that good for the country? Is the advice they generate either wise or moral? Are the public obsessed with issues that don’t matter, while they ignore the ones that do? There is a case to be made against taking any notice of what the public thinks about anything. We know that the public thinks short-term, and that its opinions on political issues are ill-informed. Public opinion is inconsistent, incoherent and volatile.

And yet democracy is built on the principle that the majority must get its way. And it’s not just politicians (and Simon Cowell) who flatter the electorate with talk of the ‘wisdom’ of the Great British Public. Lots of people seem to think that majority opinion will usually be wise, kind and helpful. But then, many also believe the moon landing was staged.

Panellists: Anne McElvoy, Melanie Philips, Mona Siddiqui & Matthew Taylor

Presenter: Michael Buerk Producers: Peter Everett & Jonathan Hallewell Editor: Tim Pemberton

The Met police has warned of a "growing" risk of violence and disorder this Remembrance weekend. The Prime Minister has described a planned pro-Palestinian protest in London on Armistice Day as “provocative and disrespectful” to those who wish to remember the war dead “in peace and dignity”. The Chief Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis said it was "a stain on our common humanity" that so many seem to have "lost sight of the moral distance between Hamas and Israel". Others, however, strongly refute the description of the demonstrations as “hate marches”, believing that the protesters should be allowed to campaign for a ceasefire and an end to the killing; and to show solidarity with Palestinians without undermining either the remembrance events or the humanity of Israelis.

The polarising nature of the Israel-Hamas war and its repercussions in the UK has resulted in both sides accusing the other of ‘weaponising’ remembrance. Public attitudes to commemoration have changed over the last century and notions of a country honouring the ultimate sacrifice of its soldiers can be hard to disentangle politically from conflicts of the day.

What are we really doing on Remembrance Day? While for some it is a deep expression of sorrow for the dead and a formal commitment to peace, others believe it risks celebrating past acts of killing, which translates into justifying present militarism and violence. If rising conflicts around the world suggest humanity has not learned from the mistakes of the past – what is the moral purpose of remembrance? How should we remember the dead as well as those who are living through conflict today?

Producer: Dan Tierney.

The UK’s prisons are full, their corridors are understaffed and their Victorian buildings are crumbling. The answer, at least at the moment, is to lock up fewer criminals. The justice secretary has announced plans this week to phase out short sentences – anything less than 12 months - because they produce “hardened criminals rather than rehabilitated offenders.”

Prison reformers have long argued that short sentences don’t work anyway, citing a reoffending rate of over 50%. Others believe that the justice system is already too soft. Community sentences, they insist, send out the wrong message to criminals and open the door to further lawbreaking. Who should and who shouldn’t go to prison?

There’s a wider question; are prisons upholding or undermining justice? Reform campaigners say that prisons are failing both society and the prisoners themselves. The best outcome for everyone is the rehabilitation of criminals, and if that isn’t possible inside prison, it should be explored outside. Others see the redemption of criminals as secondary to justice for their victims and protection for their communities.

Depending on how people see it, prisons are either too harsh or too lax. How should the justice system decide whether to wield the carrot or the stick? Can punishment itself be a necessary step towards rehabilitation? Or is prison too often a futile expression of collective vengeance?

Are prisons doing more harm than good?

Producer: Dan Tierney.

The surprise attack by Hamas was devastating, leaving hundreds of Israeli civilians dead, injured or taken hostage. Israel’s response was swift, with airstrikes on Gaza killing hundreds of Palestinians, including children.

The scale of the attack was unprecedented, but the cycle of violence and escalation is all too familiar in this land that has been contested for more than a century. Now another generation sees the bloodshed at first hand.

Hamas is dedicated to the destruction of Israel, so for many Jews this is about survival. At the same time, many Palestinians have come to see Israel as a brutal oppressor. Each side sees the other as an existential threat. Even those who refuse to define their neighbours across the Gaza border as ‘the enemy’ may find themselves defined in those terms against their will – and threatened with death.

How should we understand conventional rules of morality in such intractable circumstances? What is a proportionate response to an act of aggression? And what conditions are necessary for a realistic peace process to take hold?

Perhaps the most radical statement in all of human history is “love your enemies”. Those who are pessimistic about peace in the Middle East might dismiss that as naïve. But there are some who can give us real-life examples of the human capacity to rise above anger and grief for a greater good.

How should we think about our enemies?

With Rabbi Yehoshua Pfeffer, Atef Alshaer, Gabrielle Rifkind, Rami Elhanan and Bassam Aramin.

Producer: Dan Tierney.

The BBC has published new guidance on how its big name presenters can use social media. Those working in news and current affairs are still bound by strict rules on impartiality, which the BBC sees as being fundamental to its reputation, values and the trust of its audiences. But the presenters of other programmes are free to express their political views, as long as they don’t “endorse or attack a political party."

While impartiality means not favouring one side over another, news broadcasters are subject to a subtler version of it: “due impartiality”. That means different perspectives don’t necessarily have to be given equal weight. But which perspectives and how much weight? That’s a matter of judgment.

The changing media landscape has brought new challenges to the principle of impartiality. The media regulator Ofcom has recently investigated GB News. Among their alleged breaches of impartiality was an item in which the Conservative Chancellor was interviewed by two other Conservative MPs.

The spiritual heirs of Lord Reith believe that media impartiality is a moral good and a central pillar of democracy in an age of populism and polarisation. Sceptics suggest that the pursuit of impartiality can create problems of its own, putting ignorance and expertise on an equal footing.

Beyond broadcasting, how much should we as individuals strive for impartiality? Is it possible to look at historical events through an objective lens? While psychology tells us we all have cognitive biases, psychologists disagree about how much they can be corrected. Is it possible to be truly impartial about ourselves and others?

Producer: Dan Tierney

Michael Buerk chairs a special Moral Maze debate recorded at 'HowTheLightGetsIn' festival of philosophy and music.

The language of freedom permeates our political debate. In the US, it may be a decisive battleground in the 2024 presidential election. The problem is that people mean very different things by it. Is it freedom from government regulation or freedom to have an abortion? Freedom of speech or freedom from discrimination? Freedom to own a gun or freedom for communities to ban them?

A distinction is often made between positive and negative freedom. Negative freedom is the absence of constraints (‘freedom from’) – while positive freedom is the possibility of acting in such a way as to take control of one’s life (‘freedom to’). Libertarians often see individual freedom - the private enjoyment of one’s life and goods, free from interference – as the most fundamental value that any society should pursue and protect. This view is challenged by those who believe wealth, health and educational inequalities inevitably mean some people are more free than others, and seek instead to promote the collective freedom of society as a whole.

If a society in which there is a complete absence of restraint is as dystopian as one in which our every action is controlled, how should we navigate the trade-offs between individual freedom and other goods, like security and collective wellbeing? Is the language of freedom helpful or harmful in negotiating our political differences? Deeper question: what does it mean for a human being to be free?

With guests: Konstantin Kisin, Sophie Howe and James Orr.

Producer: Dan Tierney.

Labour has confirmed that it plans to allow 16 and 17 year-olds to vote in elections, in line with Scotland and Wales. The idea, they say, is to empower younger people by engaging them in the democratic process. Some older members of the electorate might raise the question of whether people under 18 have the maturity to vote. It would be no surprise to hear that argument, we were all children once and we know that adults think they’re superior.

It’s nearly fifty years since the concept of “childism” was first coined by psychiatrists, to describe the automatic assumption of superiority of any adult over any child. Now, perhaps, childism is the last permissible prejudice. Discrimination that would seem shocking if applied to any other group is exercised against children and regarded as quite appropriate. Children’s freedom is constantly restricted and their views are generally dismissed. They’re told what to do, what to eat, what to wear, even what to say. Is this just responsible parenting or does it verge on oppression?

Children’s minds aren’t fully developed, and they’re less well equipped to make smart decisions. They also need limits and it’s surely the job of adults to impose them, but where should the line be drawn? We should keep children safe, of course, but after that… is it better to be strict or to allow them maximum autonomy? What’s the moral basis on which we make that judgement?

Attitudes have changed over the decades. We’ve moved on from the axiom that “children should be seen and not heard.” A survey out last week suggested that parents in Britain place less importance on instilling obedience in children than parents in most other countries. But maybe a little obedience would be no bad thing?

What’s the moral case for exercising power over children and young people?

Presenter: Michael Buerk Producer: Jonathan Hallewell Editor: Tim Pemberton

School’s out for summer. For many, holidays are a chance to rest, unwind and empty the mind of work. For others, the long break brings additional pressures and stresses, such as childcare. It’s a period when inaction and inactivity are to be celebrated and envied.

What does that reveal about our priorities? During the pandemic, many people got a glimpse of what it was like to live more simply. Aristotle writes that the greatest possible human good is contemplation, a life lived remote from endless activity. Economics has taught us that our time is money, which is a necessity. But for some it has turned human beings into ‘human doings’ – units of productivity. The philosopher Bertrand Russell wrote “In Praise of Idleness” in 1932, at the height of the Great Depression, in which he called for nothing less than a total re-evaluation of work – and of leisure.

Throughout history, however, idleness has, more often than not, had a bad press. St Benedict described it as “the enemy of the soul”. Sloth is one of the seven deadly sins – a failure to do what should be done. The greatest danger of idleness, some believe, is that it can slide from a state of inaction to a state of purposelessness. That’s why Christianity has long seen the positive moral value, the character-building nature, of hard work.

Is idleness good for us?

Producer: Dan Tierney.

Wimbledon, the Ashes, the Proms and George Osborne’s wedding have all been interrupted by ‘Just Stop Oil’ protesters in recent days. Several areas of London have been brought to a standstill, provoking the ire of motorists and leading to multiple arrests. ‘Just Stop Oil’ describes itself as a “nonviolent civil resistance group demanding the UK Government stop licensing all new oil, gas and coal projects”. The Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said he wouldn't be “giving in to eco-zealots” disrupting the British summer.

The group’s supporters believe that blocking traffic, interrupting sporting events and vandalising artwork, are entirely proportionate in the face of an existential crisis bequeathed to our children and grandchildren. Right now, they argue, parts of Europe are literally on fire, and there is no more time left to wait for those in power to do the right thing. Their critics object to the fact that the targets of the protests are often ordinary people, who have more immediate concerns like the rising cost of living. Moreover, some believe the use of apocalyptic language is less likely to elicit a change in behaviour, since despair, like indifference, is not a good motivator.

How might our descendants judge today’s climate activists? Successful movements for social change, like the Suffragettes, have historically been disrupters who, in the face of inaction, adopt increasingly radical tactics. For some, the spirit they embody is irrepressible and necessary, which means that their methods cannot always be peaceful. For others, social progress can only be fully achieved through conventional democratic means.

Are acts of civil disobedience and sabotage by climate activists morally justifiable?

Producer: Dan Tierney.

As NATO meets this week, the US is seeking to calm its critics over sending cluster bombs to Ukraine. Cluster munitions are banned by many countries – including the UK and most EU members. They are more indiscriminate and can leave unexploded bomblets scattered over a wide area, posing a lethal threat to civilians years after a conflict has ended. The US, which is not a signatory to the 2008 Convention on Cluster Munitions, argues that supplying these weapons is justified in the defence of Ukraine, that civilian areas would be avoided and that records would be kept to facilitate a clean-up operation after the war.

While some see this as a clear concession of the moral high ground, others disagree. As one US congressman put it, “the only way it erodes the moral high ground is if either you're an idiot, or you're rooting for Russia in this conflict."

What should be the ethical rules of conduct in warfare, when the goal of opposing armies is to perpetrate, and sometimes maximise, death and destruction? For some, the tragedy of war is the suspension of ethical norms. And yet, certain fundamental principles, such as proportionality of violence and discrimination between enemy combatants and non-combatants, have existed for centuries to prevent the ends being justified by any means necessary in battle. But what if the enemy has no regard for these rules? How should they be interpreted outside a philosophy seminar and in the chaos of war? While the character of war is changing, the fundamental moral issues have not. When, in warfare, is it acceptable to violate ethical principles in the hope of achieving a greater good?

Producer: Dan Tierney.

Thames Water, which serves a quarter of the UK population, is billions of pounds in debt and on the brink of insolvency. The company has received heavy criticism, and calls for it to be nationalised, following a series of sewage discharges and leaks. The energy sector, railway companies, and the Royal Mail have faced a similar outcry in recent months.

When it comes to the provision of services which are essential for our national life, the calculation is often utilitarian: which form of ownership, public or private, leads to the greater social good? Many believe that the private water, rail and energy companies are simply failing to serve the public. Meanwhile, although polling suggests most people want to keep the NHS under public ownership, many of the health outcomes of patients compare less favourably to other European countries.

The privatisation versus nationalisation debate is about more than outcomes: it highlights competing visions of the good society. For some, the private sector gives us more freedom of choice as moral agents. For others, a ‘market mentality’ has crept into more and more aspects of our social and communal life, including education, and the result has been the erosion of our own moral obligations towards each other.

Can the motivation for profit co-exist alongside a vision of the common good? What moral responsibilities should private companies have to society? And what are the moral limits of markets?

Producer: Dan Tierney.

Comparisons have been made between the news coverage of two tragedies at sea. The first was the capsizing of a boat off the coast of Greece, in which more than 500 migrants from the Middle East and Africa are thought to have drowned. The second is the catastrophic implosion of the Titan submersible carrying five people, including a billionaire explorer, who paid a huge amount of money to see the wreck of the Titanic. While the first story made the news, the second story was rolling news.

Moral Maze panellist Ash Sarkar faced a backlash when she tweeted about what she saw as the “grotesque inequality of sympathy, attention and aid... Migrants are “meant” to die at sea; billionaires aren’t.”

This raises the question of the moral purpose of the news – particularly when it comes to public service broadcasting – and the difference between reporting what people want to know and what they need to know. For some, the ‘ticking clock’ coverage of the Titan tragedy was ghoulish and sensationalist. For others it was merely a reflection of the trajectory of the story: the hope, the endeavour and the jeopardy. Then there is a question of scale – does a larger body count have a greater moral claim to be covered by the news? Or is it natural for British media to reflect a greater sense of empathy for British citizens?

What makes the news, what is left out, and how it is covered, is a decision made by editorial teams and individuals with their own view of what is 'newsworthy'. But what about our responsibilities as consumers of news? Does the demand for immediate clickbait sensationalism over thoughtful analysis from the other side of the world create a news environment which is out of kilter with what matters? Is this simply human nature or something we should seek to redress?

What news stories should make a moral claim on our attention?

Producer: Dan Tierney.

Scientists have created the first synthetic human embryos using stem cells. The breakthrough could help research into genetic disorders, but it raises ethical questions about the creation of life without the need for eggs or sperm. While nobody is currently suggesting growing these embryos into a baby, the rapid progress has outpaced the law.

This prompts a wider question: instead of society having to play catch up with science, should we be having a more frank conversation about the moral responsibilities of science itself? Some believe that scientists need their own version of the Hippocratic Oath, a regulatory system of ethical standards, similar to doctors. Others think that will stifle creativity, enthusiasm and academic freedom.

The human drive for discovery is the engine of progress – and we have demonstrably never had it so good. But are there things we should not want to discover? Are we capable of making a conscious decision to say “no further” if the potential consequences of pursuing knowledge are both good and bad? For some, science is morally-neutral, its advancement is inevitable, and it’s down to society to set the rules about what to do with the findings of scientific research. For others, simply relying on the moral-neutrality of science could be humanity’s fatal flaw, and there should be more democratically-accountable oversight of the research. If that’s the case, where should the ethical lines be drawn? As well as the consequentialist arguments, some make the distinction between science as a means of discovering the natural world and ruling it; in religious terms, between seeking to understand God and ‘playing God’.

When, if ever, should we apply the brakes on science?

Producer: Dan Tierney.

It’s almost impossible to imagine why anyone would risk a perilous crossing over cold, dark waters in an inflatable dinghy. This is a story of humankind: the despair – or ambition – that drove them, the wickedness of the traffickers who exploited them, and the moral dilemma of those of us already living where they want to go. History is all about borders.

Two cross-party reports out this week have sought to inform the political and moral response to the ‘Illegal Migration Bill’, currently making its way through Parliament, which proposes that people who come to the UK “illegally” will be detained and permanently removed. The Commons Joint Committee on Human Rights concludes that the bill, “breaches a number of the UK’s international human rights obligations”. Meanwhile, a Home Affairs select committee report states there is "little evidence" Albanians are at risk in their country and need asylum in the UK.

Migration brings into focus the competing worldviews of universalism and localism. Universalists argue that the world is shrinking, and that pandemics and climate change reveal our interdependence as one global community. It is neither moral nor in the national interest, they argue, to erect bigger borders out of a sense of protectionism. Their opponents see borders as not just territorial or political, but intrinsically moral. Borders, in their view, create moral communities in which people feel rooted and valued.

How much should a country be willing to compromise the integrity of its boundaries out of compassion for non-citizens? Is it unjust to see people differently, based on where lines are drawn on a map? Would a world without borders be a better place?

Producer: Dan Tierney.

Try telling the hordes of Manchester City fans heading to the Champions League final this weekend that the beautiful game has an ugly side. The team is on the verge of sealing an historic first Treble and glory awaits. Rival fans, however, claim they’ve bought success, with the wealth of their Abu Dhabi owners.

The eye-watering sums of money invested in top-flight football raises moral questions for all fans, some of whom may feel they are entering into a Faustian pact. Newcastle United’s recent takeover by an investment fund with strong links to the Saudi state, has prompted concerns about ‘sportswashing’ – a means by which ethically dubious regimes direct attention away from their poor human rights records. Some worry that the commercialisation and uneven distribution of wealth in the game has priced hardworking fans out of watching their team, while leaving some community clubs on the brink of insolvency. There is unease not just about the institution of football but about its culture. Across Europe, high-profile black players are targets of racist abuse, there are hardly any openly gay footballers and female officials are subjected to misogyny.

Others see football, on balance, as a moral force for good. Our society, they say, would be worse off without it. Far from encouraging a toxic tribalism, enthusiasts believe football brings communities together. They cite grassroots projects, funded by footballing authorities, clubs and individual players, which often go under the radar and transform people’s lives. For many fans, football is a language that knows no borders, and their home ground is a cathedral of collective transcendence. Football could be seen as a microcosm of life – the agony, the extasy, the drama, the messiness, the humanity – just ask the people of Wrexham, whose Hollywood owners, they believe, have not just injected money into their club, but meaning into their town.

Producer: Dan Tierney.

The gender-critical philosopher Kathleen Stock’s address to the Oxford Union this week has divided academics at the university. One group has signed a letter expressing concern that student opposition to her invite goes against free speech. A second group has written an open letter supporting the students and stating that revoking an invite is not the same as preventing someone from speaking.

This case is seen by many as an example of so-called ‘cancel culture’. ‘Cancel culture’ has become such a common term that it is not always easy to understand what precisely it means and what its implications are for society. Media organisations have always made judgements about who should and should not receive a platform. What some view as censorship, others see as curating their own experience of who and what they interact with.

Cancel culture on the left is often characterised as a form of secular puritanism denouncing the ‘sins’ of the age, while, as perceived on the right, it can have an overtly religious justification in the defence of so-called traditional liberal values. Those who view cancel culture as a threat to Western liberal democracy point to dramatic historic parallels: witch hunts, inquisitions, book banning. Others reflect that ostracization and social shunning have always existed as a form of accountability for an individual’s actions. Is there a difference between a person being accountable for their behaviour and being accountable for their ideas? If not, who decides what are ‘unacceptable’ ideas? Should we understand cancel culture as a deterioration of the public sphere, symptomatic of a growing illiberalism, or does it reflect the convulsions of a free society which is morally evolving into something better?

The tragic death of primary headteacher Ruth Perry, who took her own life when her school was set to be downgraded to “inadequate”, has prompted widespread anger from teachers and calls to reform or abolish Ofsted. Ruth Perry’s family believes that the stress of the inspection led to her suicide, and this week an article in the British Medical Journal argued that “every work-related suicide” should be investigated by the Health and Safety Executive.

While some see this as an important intervention in seeking to understand and prevent further suicides, others are concerned that speculation about direct causal 'triggers' can oversimplify a complex issue. The Samaritans’ media guidelines state: “vulnerable people experiencing similar issues are more likely to over-identify with the deceased when a single reason is given”. Moreover, others are worried about the ‘weaponisation’ of individual cases of suicide by campaign groups seeking to advance wider political aims.

Suicide is a highly sensitive issue and the way we talk about it matters. Across different times and cultures it has been seen as both honourable and sinful. Today, most responses start from a place of compassion, based on a better understanding of mental health. While it is vital to understand, prevent and treat suicidal thoughts, should we ever seek to rationalise or explain suicide? That question is also pertinent in the debate around assisted dying. For some, choosing to end one’s life in this way is a rational decision we should be allowed to make in certain circumstances, for others, that social acceptance would have a far-reaching impact on people's perception of the worthwhileness of their life.

How should we talk about suicide?

Producer: Dan Tierney.

If you are suffering distress or despair and need support, including urgent support, a list of organisations that can help is available at www.bbc.co.uk/actionline

AI – the end of humanity or the next evolutionary step?

Computers are becoming more powerful. Much more powerful. Last week, Gordon Moore, the co-founder of Intel Corporation died. A computer industry billionaire, he came up with ‘Moore’s Law’ which observed that the power of computers doubles every couple of years. Today a microchip can contain 50 billion transistors, each narrower than a strand of human DNA.

The war of the robots has begun. Microsoft’s ‘ChatGPT’ and its rival, Google’s ‘Bard’ allow you to have a conversation with a computer, much as you would with another person. But it’s not just talk. As well as writing essays, presentations, legal documents and sermons, artificial intelligence can also produce art. We’ve accepted that machines can beat us at chess, but might they soon also beat us at poetry, painting and music? Could they make Shakespeare look second rate? Or will art without human input always be worthless?

Some people are impressed by the quality of what AI can create, but others are scared. It’s one thing for computers to process our knowledge, but quite another when a machine starts to teach itself. If it behaves just like a real person, will we trust it more than we should? Can machines display morality and if not, is it safe to allow them to make decisions for us? We worry that AI might take over our jobs, but should we really be worrying that it might replace humanity altogether?

Some see AI as the next evolutionary step, the latest development by mankind, with potential to transform lives for the better. But what are the risks in asking technology, however impressive, to solve human problems? Should we be excited by AI, or could artificial intelligence mark the start of the end of humanity?

Producer: Jonathan Hallewell Presenter: Michael Buerk Editor: Tim Pemberton

Is Growth a False God?

Last week’s budget was, according to the Chancellor, about growth. Whenever politicians talk about their plans these days, it’s always about growth. The arguments are clear: Until we generate more growth, we can’t get any richer and wages can’t increase either. It’s urgent too: The UK will be the only major economy apart from Russia to shrink this year, according to forecasts from the OECD. But not everyone is convinced that increasing growth makes us happier, or even that it’s sustainable.

Some believe the pursuit of growth attaches too little value to wellbeing, that it neglects what should be the real priority, people’s contentment and happiness. Government policies lead us, they claim, to work harder and for longer than we want to. They suggest it creates a culture that values our economic activity, earning money and spending it, over other important roles such as caring for children and elderly relatives, maintaining our community, or charitable work. Some ecological economists believe that endless growth is unachievable without climate breakdown, that it simply can’t be sustained without irreversible damage to the planet.

What is the moral case for the pursuit of growth? The political orthodoxy is that a growing economy is good for everyone. Growth drives up pay; welfare payments depend on tax revenues; pension providers rely on stock market growth for their returns. So don’t we all have an interest in continuous growth? Or have we created a world where our leaders care more about GDP than our happiness? Has growth become a false God?

Producer: Jonathan Hallewell Presenter: Michael Buerk Editor: Tim Pemberton

Is pacifism virtuous, admirable, impractical, immoral or stupid?

War and militarism are in the news every day. In the Budget, the Chancellor announced an extra £11bn in defence spending over the next five years, to counter threats from hostile states. It comes alongside news of a new defence pact with the US and Australia in response to Chinese military power. The war in Ukraine has seen advanced weapons rushed in by Western countries to support the fight against Russia. But alongside the talk of battles and territory won and lost, there is also talk of the horrors of war. There are renewed demands for peace, and some say it should be peace at any price. In Germany, protest marchers assert that sending more weapons to Ukraine pours fuel on the fire, causing more death, misery and destruction. They claim to detect a change of mood and point out that the latest film adaptation of “All Quiet on the Western Front”, a 1929 novel by the German pacifist, Erich Maria Remarque, has just picked up four Oscars to add to its 14 Baftas. Western leaders insist that Russia most lose the war, and be seen to lose, but is it really better to create more bloodshed, sacrifice more lives, in order to achieve something closer to justice? Forcing Ukraine to negotiate now and inevitably cede territory could bring the violence to an end and start the process of rebuilding. Or is that “giving in” and encouraging further aggression by Russia and others? Is pacifism virtuous and admirable? Immoral and stupid? Or is it, perhaps just impractical? What is the moral case for choosing peace over justice?

Producer: Jonathan Hallewell Presenter: William Crawley Editor: Gill Farrington

Breach of Trust

When the journalist Isabel Oakeshott broke her promise and passed Matt Hancock's personal WhatsApp messages to the Daily Telegraph, was she morally justified in doing so? She didn't just go back on her word to the former health secretary, but broke a legally-binding Non Disclosure Agreement. She claims that "no journalist worth their salt" would have acted otherwise and insists her obligations to Mr Hancock were outweighed by the public interest served by releasing the messages. But others see it differently. It was, they claim, a decision aimed at promoting her own view that government lockdown measures during the pandemic were excessive. Journalists often cite the "public interest" when it can seem that their actions are more about advancing a particular cause, or about selling their story because the "public are interested".

Aside from journalism, when is a breach of trust justified in any human relationship? For many professionals, there's an understanding that confidentiality does sometimes have to be broken. The police, social workers, doctors, teachers and even the clergy grapple with often difficult judgements about the morality of betraying trust. At times, promises are broken with the justification that it's for "the greater good". But is there really no such a thing as a truly solemn "never to be broken" promise? Or are all our confidences, our shared stories and discreet conversations rather loose arrangements, conditional on other loyalties and pressures? In our personal relationships, should we be less ready to make promises we can't keep, and also avoid asking others to do the same? What are the moral limits to our obligation to keep a secret, and how can we know when it's right to breach someone's trust?

Producer: Jonathan Hallewell Presenter: William Crawley Editor: Helen Grady

Leaders with Faith

The first hustings in the election of the new leader of the Scottish National Party were held this week. The winner will become Scotland’s first minister. But so far the coverage of the campaign has been more about religion than policy. One of the three candidates, Kate Forbes is a member of the Free Church of Scotland and has faced criticism from within her party for saying that she would have voted against gay marriage, had she been an MSP in 2014. She also said that according to her religious beliefs, having a child outside of marriage was wrong. Several of her backers have withdrawn their support and others have questioned whether such views make her an appropriate choice to lead the country.

But why should traditional religious beliefs like this be a barrier to achieving high office? Forbes insists that it’s possible to be a person of faith, while still supporting the rights of others. Although she would have opposed the legalisation of same sex marriage, she says that as a “servant of democracy” she would now defend the legal right to gay marriage “to the hilt”.

Religious belief used to be seen by most people as a private matter. It was also generally regarded as a positive attribute in a senior politician, evidence perhaps of a strong moral compass. So what has changed in our attitudes to faith and should it affect how we choose our leaders?

Producer: Jonathan Hallewell Presenter: Michael Buerk

How should Britain make amends for its colonial past?

Should museums in the UK return historic artefacts to their countries of origin? Many items displayed in museums were looted in colonial times and now there are campaigns for them to be returned. There's a related question of whether Britain should pay reparations for its role in the slave trade. Attitudes to both of these questions have shifted in recent years. Some of the Benin Bronzes, looted by the British Army in 1897 have been returned to Nigeria. The British Museum is now in talks over how the Elgin Marbles, removed from the Parthenon Temple in Greece in the 19th century, might be displayed in Athens. Recently the Church of England set up a fund, worth £100m, to address the past wrongs of its involvement with slavery. The church has expressed shame that it invested in, and made money from the slave trade. The fund will be used to benefit communities affected by historic slavery. Several universities have taken similar steps. But is this an appropriate way to acknowledge the suffering caused during Britain's colonial past? Some believe that while it's appropriate to openly admit Britain's role in slavery, it’s impossible to repair the damage done and it's wrong to expect British people today to pay reparation to the descendants of enslaved people. Others say that the economic cost of slavery is still being felt by those descendants. It's a debt that needs to be paid. It’s also suggested that paying reparation is a valuable step in tackling the racism that still exists today. What moral obligations of restitution and reparation do we inherit from our ancestors? What rights of redress can we claim for what was done to our forebears? How should Britain make amends for its colonial past?

Producer: Jonathan Hallewell Presenter: Michael Buerk

Why does God allow natural disasters to happen? The devastation following the recent earthquakes in Turkey and Syria has been appalling. Already more than 41,000 people have died. Extraordinary stories have emerged as people have been rescued after spending days trapped under rubble. Those small moments of respite have been greeted with heartfelt prayers of thanks for each life saved. The blame for the earthquake and the shocking loss of life has been placed not on God’s shoulders, but on the planning officials and builders who allowed fragile homes to be built. But if God really is almighty and good, why does he allow natural disasters like this to happen? It’s a recurring moral conundrum, but if God is given credit for the splendour and beauty of nature, why then isn’t he also held responsible for the destruction and suffering caused by forces completely beyond the control of people? Some see this as a compelling argument against the existence of a good and almighty God. Others suggest that we can never fully understand divinity and it makes no sense to apply such crude moral questions to God. What is certain is that religion provides many believers with great consolation in times like this, when sorrow and suffering are all around. Also, many of those providing support in the rescue effort do so inspired by their faith.

Producer: Jonathan Hallewell Presenter: Michael Buerk

In her first public comments since leaving office, the Ex-PM Liz Truss has argued that her plans to boost economic growth were brought down by "the left-wing economic establishment". Losing the confidence of the financial markets at a time of global uncertainty has made us all more aware of our income and expenditure. If the news accurately reflected our lives, it would be hard to escape the conclusion that life is all about money - inflation, interest rates, pay demands and profits. The overriding objective of measuring economic growth is to help as many people as possible to have more money. But how have we become so pre-occupied with what is, after all, an artificial construct that is intrinsically valueless – paper and numbers in themselves morally neutral?

The love of money may be the root of all evil, but its use demands trust and co-operation, its possession brings freedom and agency. Money may have given much of humanity richer lives, in every way, but it’s made us into transactional, rather than relational beings, and it corrupts as much as it enables; a tool that so often seems our master. It’s impossible for us to judge when we have enough of it.

If the best things in life are free, can we imagine a world without money – and would it be better?

With Charlie Mullins, Darren McGarvey, Tomáš Sedláček and Anitra Nelson

Producer: Dan Tierney.

Boris Johnson has described a chilling phone call in which Vladimir Putin threatened him with a missile strike in the run-up to Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Almost a year on from the start of the war, it’s tempting to see it as a clear-cut conflict between good and evil; Putin the malign aggressor bent on destruction and conquest, Zelensky the courageous defender of liberty and his country. It may be true, or at least substantially so, but is it helpful?

Seeing events through the prism of good and evil enables us to make moral judgements and define what we value. But it can also brush aside the ambiguities of complex situations and de-humanise both those we deem evil, and those we regard as good. Plato and St Augustine thought they were not opposites; that evil was the absence of good, a lack of moral imagination. Psychologists might prefer to dispense with the term ‘evil’ altogether, seeing it as human behaviour to be explained and understood.

Does evil exist? If so, what is it? And how should we deal with it?

With Ed Condon, Professor Scott Atran, Professor Lars Svendsen and Professor Tony Maden

Producer Dan Tierney