Moral Maze

Paul Conroy, a war cameraman with extensive experience in conflict zones, discusses the ethics of witnessing graphic violence and its impact on personal trauma and social change. Philosopher Jamie Whyte dives into moral questions around censorship and the public's right to know. The guests debate whether there’s a moral duty to watch shocking footage, how it shapes our understanding, and the potential dangers of desensitization. Together, they explore the balance between open access to information and the dignity of those depicted in distressing situations.

Alice Evatt, a Research Fellow on Net Zero at the Oxford Environmental Change Unit, and Sorin Baiasu, a philosophy professor focused on Kantian ethics, dive into the moral implications of net zero emissions. They debate whether pursuing net zero is a moral obligation amidst rising energy costs and societal impacts. The conversation navigates complex ethical dilemmas, such as balancing environmental goals with economic realities and the responsibilities of nations to address historical emissions and climate justice.

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.

Join striptease performer and author Stacey Clare, alongside philosopher John Haldane, as they dive into the intricate world of disgust and morality. They discuss the backlash against controversial behaviors, like the case of Bonnie Blue, and question how instinctive feelings shape our moral judgments. Clare touches on the ethics of sex work and the importance of consent, while Haldane explores the evolutionary roots of disgust as a moral compass. Together, they challenge listeners to rethink societal norms and the true implications of our visceral reactions.

Join historian Paul Lay, writer Maddy Fry, and sociologist Ellis Cashmore as they dive into the hot topic of replacing historical figures on banknotes with more contemporary symbols. They navigate the murky waters of heroism, questioning whether we should venerate flawed icons like Churchill and Austen or embrace a more inclusive narrative. The trio explores how celebrity culture shapes our understanding of historical figures and what it means to be a hero in today's society, emphasizing the importance of recognizing imperfections and collective achievements.

Matthew Syed, a columnist and broadcaster, shares insights on social cohesion shaped by his experiences. Julie Siddiqui highlights her grassroots work promoting interfaith understanding. Professor Mona Siddiqui discusses pluralism and the governmental role in fostering community bonds. Ravi Gurumurthy presents statistics on race relations, while Lord Jonathan Sumption explores human nature's impact on social unity. Inaya Folarin-Iman adds her thoughts on national identity, questioning if genuine social cohesion can be achieved through policy alone.

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

In this compelling discussion, guests Caroline Farrow, a Catholic journalist and mother of five, and Lisa Schipper, a Professor of Developmental Geography, delve into the moral complexities of parenthood in today's society. They analyze declining birth rates across developed nations and the economic implications of fewer children. Anna Rotkirch shares insights on population trends, while Sarah Ditum highlights cultural shifts surrounding family and gender roles. Together, they ponder whether there's a moral duty to have children or if personal choice should reign supreme.