Moral Maze

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.

Anne McElvoy, an executive editor at Politico, joins a panel that includes Ash Sarkar, a journalist from Navara Media, and Mariana Mazzucato, an economist from UCL. They dive into the moral implications of free trade amidst global economic tensions. Topics include the ethical dilemmas of tariffs set by Trump, the adverse impact on American workers, and wealth inequality. The discussion highlights the chasm between economic metrics and everyday realities, questioning how trade policies can be both a source of poverty alleviation and a mechanism of exploitation.

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

Join Ash Sarkar, a prominent voice on masculinity, historian Tim Stanley, and NHS leader Matthew Taylor as they tackle the pressing issues surrounding modern manhood. They explore the impact of social media on young men's identities, the rise of misogyny, and the clash between traditional and evolving gender roles. Clare Ford shares insights from her work with teens, while John Amaechi discusses emotional intelligence. With contribution from contrarian Brendan O'Neill and author James Bloodworth, this discussion navigates the complex landscape of masculinity today.

Inaya Folarin-Iman, a commentator and campaigner, engages with Ash Sarkar from Navara Media on the controversial two-tier justice system. Historian Tim Stanley provides historical perspectives while Giles Fraser discusses justice principles. Kirsty Brimelow shares her legal expertise and Henry Hill critiques the new guidelines. Sheldon Thomas, from Gangline, shares personal insights on preventing crime in young black men, while Rakib Ehsan highlights research on ethnic minorities in the justice system. They tackle biases, fairness, and the role of personal backgrounds in sentencing.

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

Tim Stanley, a historian, joins Ash Sarkar of Novara Media and other experts to dive into the debate on inherited inequality. They discuss how family dynamics perpetuate privilege and the moral dilemmas surrounding inheritance tax. The conversation highlights the inequity of opportunity faced by many, challenging the effectiveness of meritocracy in the presence of wealth disparity. They explore the balance between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome, urging a critical examination of societal structures that sustain these inherited advantages.

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