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

Join a vibrant discussion featuring James Orr, an Associate Professor of the Philosophy of Religion, and feminist author Ella Whelan. They delve into the state of democracy today, weighing its challenges against authoritarian admiration. Tim Stanley shares historical insights, while sociologist Rhiannon Firth critiques representative democracy and considers anarchism as an alternative. Robert Griffiths presents a communist perspective, and Erica Benner offers insights on reforming democratic systems. Can democracy still claim to be the least worst option?

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

Matthew Taylor, Chief executive of the NHS Confederation, discusses healthcare and assisted dying. Ash Sarkar, a contributor to Novara Media, dives into the social implications of mortality. Anne McElvoy from Politico offers a political lens on death, while Charlotte Haigh shares personal insights as a funeral director. Anton Noble explores young people's views on violence and death. Teodora Manea provides philosophical reflections, emphasizing the importance of confronting mortality for a richer understanding of life. Insights span from the historical context of death to its modern societal impacts.

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

The discussion features Ash Sarkar, a Novara Media contributor, and James Orr, a Cambridge philosophy professor, diving into the debates over Jamie Oliver's controversial book. Mona Siddiqui, an expert in interreligious studies, explores intent vs. moral culpability, while Giles Fraser adds a clerical angle on ethics. Daniel Browning brings an Indigenous perspective, criticizing the cultural representation. Brendan O'Neill argues for creative freedom, as Professor Paulina Sliwa examines the significance of intent in moral judgments. The conversations unravel the complexities of accountability and the impact of intentions.