Moral Maze

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 flightWITNESSES: 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 BuerkPanellists: 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 CashmoreCHAIR 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 HistorianPANELLISTS: Rev Dr Giles Fraser Anne McElvoy Lord Jonathan Sumption Matthew TaylorChaired 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 PembertonPanel: Mona Siddiqui Tim Stanley Matthew Taylor Inaya Folarin-ImanWitnesses: 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 AnsariPanellists: Carmody Grey, Giles Fraser, Inaya Folarin-Iman , Mona SiddiquiPresenter: 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 PembertonPanel: Anne McElvoy Ash Sarkar Matthew Taylor James OrrWitnesses: 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 PembertonPanel: 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 PembertonPanel: Ash Sarkar Tim Stanley Matthew Taylor Anne McElvoyWitnesses: 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 PembertonPanel: Ash Sarkar Tim Stanley Inaya Folarin-Iman Giles FraserWitnesses: 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 WalkerPanel: 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 PembertonPanel: Mona Siddiqui Tim Stanley Sonia Sodha Anne McElvoyWitnesses: 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 PembertonPanel: Giles Fraser Mona Siddiqui Inaya Folarin-Iman Tim StanleyWitnesses: Mykola Bielieskov Peter Hitchens Brian Klaas Jan Halper-Hayes

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

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

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 BuerkPanellists: Ash Sarkar, James Orr, Mona Siddiqui and Giles FraserWitnesses: 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 PurserPanellists: 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 PurserPanel: Giles Fraser Sonia Sodha Ash Sarkar Tim StanleyWitnesses: 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 PurserChair: Michael BuerkPanel: Ash Sarkar Konstantin Kisin Mona Siddiqui Tim StanleyWitnesses: 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 PurserPanel: Anne McElvoy Giles Fraser Ash Sarkar Tim StanleyWitnesses: 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 InstituteProducer: 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 HistorianPanel: Inaya Folarin-Iman, Mona Siddiqui, Matthew Taylor,Ella WhelanPresenter: 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 TombsPanellists: Anne McElvoy Ash Sarkar Tim Stanley Matthew TaylorPresenter: Michael BuerkProducers: Catherine Murray & Peter Everett Assistant Producer: Ruth Purser Editor: Tim Pemberton