Moral Maze

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 Is privacy out of date, or a moral good that’s the basis of freedom?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 Rotrich, Prof Lisa Schipper, Sarah Ditum PRODUCER Catherine Murray ASSISTANT PRODUCER Peter Everett EDITOR Tim Pemberton

In this insightful discussion, James Orr, a philosophy professor, raises ethical concerns about AI's impact on human identity. Matthew Taylor shares how AI could transform healthcare dynamics. Kaitlyn Regehr highlights the addiction to technology and its implications. Anne McElvoy analyzes current events shaped by AI, while Marcus du Sautoy explores AI's blend of creativity and logic. Dorian Lynskey emphasizes the importance of truth in an AI-dominated world, revealing the urgent need for responsible oversight in navigating AI's promise and peril.

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.