Moral Maze

Twelve years to save the world. While we're squabbling about Brexit, climate scientists are reminding us that the existential threat of our day is global warming. This week’s report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issues the most extensive warning yet on the risks of rising temperatures. According to its authors, keeping to the preferred target of 1.5C above pre-industrial levels will mean cutting carbon emissions by 45% by the year 2030. That will involve, they say, "rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society". Decades of increasing prosperity, freedom and choice in the West have come at a cost. The rest of the world wants rapid growth too, but should they be allowed to have it? In a society that badly needs to learn the meaning of ‘delayed gratification’, how should we, as individuals, change our behaviour? When the priority is putting food on the table, many choose economic expedience over sustainability - it can be expensive to go green. Would it be right for the government to make us all greener by taxing or even banning log-burning stoves, gas-guzzling cars and cheap air travel? Many make the moral case for saving the planet on behalf of our grandchildren. But what of our moral obligation to those who don’t yet even exist? Is it morally dubious to put the theoretical interests of posterity before the real and immediate needs of poor people today? If climate change is the organising call of our age, how should we respond? Combative, provocative and engaging debate chaired by Michael Buerk. With Shiv Malik, Anne McElvoy, Tim Stanley and Giles Fraser. Witnesses: Leo Barasi, Author of “The Climate Majority: Apathy and Action in an Age of Nationalism”; Ross Clark, Journalist, author and political commentator; Charlotte Du Cann, Core member of the Dark Mountain project; and George Monbiot, Journalist, columnist and campaigner.Producer: Dan Tierney

The Prime Minister Theresa May has announced a 70th birthday 'present' for the NHS: an extra £20bn a year by 2023, paid for in part by tax rises. It has been received with cries of 'about time' and 'not enough.' Other voices mutter that we are simply pouring good money after bad into a system that is broken. To go with the funding boost, the government has promised a 10-year plan that "tackles waste, reduces bureaucracy and eliminates unacceptable variation," but sceptics say we've seen those promises before. With an ever-aging population and increasing pressures on the system, is it time for a fundamental re-appraisal of the NHS's priorities? What is it actually for? Is the job of the NHS to help us when we get sick, or to keep us from getting sick in the first place? Do expensive treatments need to be rationed, and if so, how should we decide who gets them? The sickest, the youngest, the ones with the best chance of recovery or the ones who can't afford to go private? The mantra of 'free at the point of delivery' embodies a fundamental moral principle that makes the NHS the envy of the world, according to many. Others believe it has turned our healthcare system into a religion - and delivered worse health outcomes than different systems in comparable countries. Ultimately, is it fair to ask those who look after their own health to pay for the treatment of those who don't? Witnesses are James Bartholomew, Dr Brian Fisher, Caroline Abrahams and Dr Kristian Niemietz.Producer: Dan Tierney.

These are difficult days for diplomats; President Trump has torn up the rule-book. In just a few hours he went from firing off a salvo of angry tweets criticising America's G7 allies to embracing Kim Jong-un, the leader of North Korea - seen for decades as a rogue state - in an historic summit. Mr Trump's supporters see a man who gets things done in the interests of the people who elected him. As the Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson put it recently, "Imagine Trump doing Brexit... There would be all sorts of breakdowns, there would be all sorts of chaos, but you might get somewhere." Others shudder at the breakdowns in communication, the name-calling and what they insist is a threat to economic freedom and global stability. They believe that international relations should serve higher moral ideals of loyalty and the common good rather than the mere pursuit of national self-interest. While many applaud the historic talks with North Korea this week, others question whether talking to tyrants proves that morality is dead in international relations. Is there a moral duty to do our trade deals and make our alliances with nations that respect human rights? Or should we abandon the idea that some countries are simply beyond the pale? Witnesses are Sir Robert Cooper, Dr Philip Cunliffe, Dr Jan Halper-Hayes and Dr Leslie Vinjamuri.Producer: Dan Tierney.

With 25 Islamist plots foiled in the last five years and four extreme right plots stopped since March 2017, the Home Secretary Sajid Javid this week described a "step change" in the terrorist threat to the UK. As a result, MI5 is to declassify and share information on UK citizens suspected of having terrorist sympathies. "Key" biographical data on - potentially - hundreds of people will be given to neighbourhood police, councils and other public agencies such as the Probation Service and the Charity Commission. Is this an example of sensible information-sharing in the interest of national security, or is it the problematic extension of counter-terrorism responsibilities to those who may not be qualified to handle them? Many believe that as the nature of terrorism is changing, so should our behaviour. Anyone can buy a knife and hire a van, therefore we - citizens, employees, officials - should all be vigilant and prepared to report our suspicions. But is all this suspicion good for us or can it result in an unhealthy culture of paranoia and vigilantism? The question goes much wider than terrorism. For example, should clergy, therapists, journalists and teachers be duty bound to report suspicions of criminality? Is respect for confidentiality no longer an unassailable virtue? Witnesses are Phillip Blond, Silkie Carlo, Adrian Hilton and Hannah Stuart. Producer: Dan Tierney.

Following the landslide vote to overturn strict abortion laws in the Irish Republic, attention has shifted to Northern Ireland - the last corner of the British Isles to resist both legal abortion and gay marriage. The Prime Minister Theresa May is facing growing calls to bring the laws in line with the rest of the UK. It's a complicated political picture, but it raises a number of important moral questions. The first is about the extent to which a nation's religious and cultural traditions should be enshrined in its laws. Is it morally acceptable that Northern Ireland should have laws on abortion and same-sex marriage that are different from those in the rest of the UK? Can - or should - a government ever be neutral, or merely procedural, on substantive moral issues? Yet, the Irish referendum also highlighted a wider moral point about the concept of shame, and its complex relationship with respectability and institutional religion. Speaking about the scandal of Ireland's mother and baby homes, the former Taoiseach, Enda Kenny said: "No nuns broke into our homes to take our children. We gave them up because of our morbid and perverse pursuit for respectability." After the abortion vote, the current Prime Minister Leo Varadkar declared: "The burden of shame is gone". At what point does shame stop being corrective and start to become corrosive? Does it still have a useful role to play in society? From #MeToo to the public pillorying of greedy bankers and carbon-emitters, don't we still need the sanction of shame? Witnesses are Susie Boniface, Ed Condon, Martin Pollecoff and Prof Julian Savulescu.Producer: Dan Tierney.

Worried Facebook-users who have deleted their accounts because of the Cambridge Analytica scandal have been discovering that the social network held even more data about them than they had feared: complete records of their phone calls and text messages, contacts from their address books, appointments from their calendars, reminders of their friends' birthdays... It is naïve to suggest that we can ever again be truly private individuals, however much we might like to be, but is the harvesting of our personal information getting out of hand? The moral issue is not just about privacy - whether these companies should have such information about us in the first place - but is also about the ways in which it can be used. Is it right to divide up the population into sub-groups, without their knowledge, so they can be precisely targeted with advertisements and political propaganda? "Shocking!" say some newspaper pundits. "It's what advertisers and campaigners have always done," say others. What, if anything, should be done about it? Harsher punishments? Stricter regulation? Is it the moral duty of companies to be more transparent, beyond the small-print 'Terms and Conditions' that hardly anyone reads or understands? Cheerleaders for Big Data point to its potential to transform our lives, improving health and education. Its detractors say the abuse of personal information is nothing less than a threat to democracy. And there are some who believe both positions are overstated and who worry that we have lost faith in the public's ability to make its own judgments. Witnesses are Silkie Carlo, Christopher Graham, Timandra Harkness and Katz Kiely.Producer: Dan Tierney.

The icy winds from the East have been an apt meteorological metaphor for UK-Russia relations. Since the Salisbury spy incident, and the immediate pointing of blame at the Kremlin, diplomats have been kicked out of both countries. But that's unlikely to be the end of the matter. All eyes are on what happens next. What would be the most moral course of action to take? Should the UK pursue the strongest possible sanctions and perhaps even refuse to compete in this year's World Cup in Russia? Some believe that unless we take a firm moral stand we put our own citizens at risk and we let down the Russian people. Others urge caution, believing sanctions will mostly hurt ordinary people and will do little to change the regime's behaviour. Aside from tit-for-tat punishment, it has been suggested that Putin's alleged antics with chemical weapons are bringing us closer to a "Cold War 2.0". After the Berlin Wall fell almost thirty years ago, we hoped for progress towards a more peaceful world. Was that a delusion? It could be argued that the world is more dangerous now than it was when power-blocs followed the rules of realpolitik, and everyone knew where they stood. Even then, we came perilously close to mutual destruction - so should we press on now with the search for a new and better kind of international moral order? Witnesses are Simon Jenkins, Dr Rebecca Johnson, Mark Rice-Oxley and Prof Robert Service.Producer: Dan Tierney.

Tatty bye, Doddy. The most famous resident of Knotty Ash, wielder of the tickling stick and creator of the Diddymen, has died. Sir Ken Dodd's widow said: "He just wanted to make people happy". He was both of his time - described as "one of the last music hall greats" - and timeless. From his debut at the Nottingham Empire in 1954 as "Professor Yaffle Chucklebutty: Operatic Tenor and Sausage Knotter," he never failed to reduce his audiences to tears of helpless laughter. For some, there could be no higher moral purpose of comedy than this. Yet we don't all agree about what is funny or even about what comedy is for. There will always be those who think that some subjects are beyond humour. Others will say it's the target of the humour that's important. Should comedy reinforce or challenge the moral consensus of its audience? When is mockery offensive and when is it satire? Where is the line between challenging bigotry and reinforcing stereotypes? Are comedians as important as pundits or politicians to the health of democracy? Or has comedy dumbed down debate and trivialised issues we should be taking seriously? Was Molière right when he said that the function of comedy is "to correct men's vices"? Or should we just stick a cucumber through next doors' letter box and tell them the Martians have landed? Witnesses are Dominic Frisby, Prof Matthew Flinders, Lynne Parker and Ted Robbins.Producer: Dan Tierney.

Cycling is again in the spotlight for the wrong reasons. A damning report by MPs argues that Sir Bradley Wiggins and Team Sky "crossed an ethical line." They claim that the Tour de France champion used an asthma drug - which is allowed under the anti-doping rules for medical need - to enhance his performance. The accusation is strenuously denied, but where exactly is the "ethical line"? Isn't it expected that competitors will do anything and everything within the rules to gain an edge? Even the model sportsman Roger Bannister sharpened his running spikes and rubbed graphite on them before breaking the four-minute-mile barrier. It certainly gained him an edge, but not unfairly. In sharp contrast, there are those who believe this latest case is another example of how sport has lost its soul. They say the ideals of 'sportsmanship' and respecting the spirit of the rules have given way to making money, winning at all costs and cheating if you can get away with it. In sport (and in competition generally) there will always be a grey area between what is moral and what is forbidden. Should we aim to narrow that gap, tighten the rules and enforce harsher sanctions? Or can ethical grey areas be a good thing? It could be argued they are essential in order for sportsmanship to shine. In business, they can be seen as necessary for innovation. In our personal lives, they give us moral agency to make important decisions and they provide a means by which we judge others. Surely a regime in which everything is either illegal or acceptable is the black and white landscape of tyranny? And yet - if the line is not simply between winning and losing, where should it be drawn? Witnesses are John-William Devine, Dr Paul Dimeo, Dr Emily Ryall and Ed Smith.Producer: Dan Tierney.

Since we learned that aid workers, sent to help the victims of the Haiti earthquake, chose instead to have sex with some of them, there's been something of a moral earthquake within the international aid sector. Charities had seemed to be beyond criticism; paragons of virtue. Now their moral high ground is crumbling away. It's not just Oxfam, though that was where the revelations began and where loud apologies failed to stop 7,000 private donors from cancelling their direct debits. Now the spotlight is on the aid 'industry' as a whole. It seems we can't stand the hypocrisy of powerful organisations using taxpayers' money to lecture us on how to behave, while failing to get their own house in order. There is a wider question about their effectiveness in helping people out of poverty: sceptics argue that global capitalism and stable institutions are much more important; without them, development aid is a waste of time and money. They believe the UK's "overgenerous" foreign aid commitment should be scrapped. Others dismiss that reaction as a moral panic which is ignorant, duplicitous and totally disproportionate. Of course, they say, charities - like any institutions - can be infiltrated by bad people, but when it comes to long-term development, oversees aid helps far more than it hinders. Regardless of whether or not international charities are supremely efficient or every one of their employees is a saint, do we still have a moral duty to give them money, either individually or collectively through tax, to help people in poor countries?Producer: Dan Tierney.