Moral Maze

BBC Radio 4

4.7（48則評分）
宗教與精神生活
隔週更新

Combative, provocative and engaging live debate examining the moral issues behind one of the week's news stories. #moralmaze

1 天前

Is loyalty a virtue or a vice?

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

56 分鐘
11月14日

Does intent matter?

Celebrity chef Jamie Oliver has pulled his new children's book from the shelves after complaints that it stereotyped Indigenous Australians. Some First Nations leaders have called the book "offensive". Oliver says it was not his “intention". This case raises philosophical questions about the role of intent in the way we act and in the way we judge the actions of others. If harm is measured by the impact of an action rather than the intention behind it, how much does the intention matter at all? The fact that the law distinguishes between murder and manslaughter suggests that intent is indispensable in assessing moral culpability. On the other hand, being tired or incompetent at the wheel of a car may result in a more deadly outcome than knowingly driving recklessly. In our everyday relationships, we all make excuses for our behaviour when we mess up, but what makes a good excuse – a work-deadline, a wailing infant, ignorance? More complicated still, how can we discern someone’s intent not to cause harm or offense, particularly if we don’t inhabit the same social or cultural reality? Does intent matter? After all, you know what they say about the road to hell… Chair: Michael Buerk Panellists: Ash Sarkar, James Orr, Mona Siddiqui and Giles Fraser Witnesses: Daniel Browning, Brendan O'Neill, Dr Paul Youngbin Kim, Professor Paulina Sliwa. Producer: Dan Tierney Assistant producer: Ruth Purser

57 分鐘
11月7日

VAT on private school fees: justice or spite?

The tax increases on private schools, though long trailed, were among the most emotive measures in last week’s blockbuster budget, because they’re widely seen to be as much a moral issue as a question of politics or economics. It was a former Conservative education secretary, Michael Gove, who asked: why should the state support the already wealthy to buy advantage for their children? Others see it as an attack on aspiration and excellence, ”a vindictive piece of class warfare on parents who scrimp and save to pay fees”, according to Mr Gove’s former colleague David Davies. Taxing private schools – justice or spite? PANELLISTS: Ash Sarkar, Ella Whelan, Giles Fraser, Mona Siddiqui PRESENTER: Michael Buerk PRODUCER: Catherine Murray ASSISTANT PRODUCER: Ruth Purser EDITOR: Tim Pemberton

56 分鐘
10月31日

The morality of sending offenders to prison.

Overcrowded, understaffed and in disrepair, Britain’s prisons are in crisis. One of the first acts of the Labour government was to announce that thousands of prisoners would be let out early to make room for the next wave of inmates. The Scottish government has a similar scheme. Press photographs taken at prison gates show chortling convicts cheering the Prime Minister before climbing into luxury cars and heading off to celebrate. Arguments rage between those who say we send too many offenders to prison (more, as a proportion of the population, than any other country in Europe) and those who say we don’t catch and punish enough criminals, so we need tougher policing and more jails. Perhaps the prison crisis is a blessing in disguise, because it is stimulating new ideas. Initiatives are already under way that may develop into long-term solutions. Reformers want more sentences of community service, more curfews enforced by electronic tagging, more flexible parole used as a reward for good behaviour. They point out that the nations with most prisoners are also, by and large, the countries with most crime; in Britain, they say, lawbreaking flourishes in the absence of both deterrence and rehabilitation. Our sentencing tariffs, criminologists insist, are incoherent and morally dubious; we are too hard on some offenders and too soft on others; we should rewrite the guidelines to distinguish more clearly between wicked criminals and hapless inadequates; most offenders need support, guidance and incentives to address their problems, not incarceration. But that’s not what the voters tend to think, so it’s not what MPs have tended to support. The majority view has always been that prisons should be used to protect the public. What’s more, they should be unpleasant places, to express society’s disapproval of criminality, and sentences should be longer, because there has to be punishment as well as rehabilitation. Lock ‘em up or let ‘em out? The panel: Sonia Sodha, Giles Fraser, Inaya Folarin Iman, Matthew Taylor. Witnesses: Ayesha Nayyar, Scarlett Roberts, Peter Bleksley, Dr Hindpal Singh Bhui

57 分鐘
10月24日

How should we help the global poor?

“Dawn... and as the sun breaks through the piercing chill of night on the plain outside Korem, it lights up a biblical famine, now, in the 20th century...” Those words, spoken by Michael Buerk 40 years ago, pricked the world’s conscience, triggered an unprecedented humanitarian effort, led to Live Aid and spawned institutions like Comic Relief. Since then, more than a billion people around the world have climbed out of extreme poverty, although around 700 million people still live on less than $2.15 a day, according to the World Bank. Times have changed. Not only is the media landscape vastly different, making competing demands on our attention, but also our attitudes to helping the poor around the world are different. The question is not simply whether we have a moral duty to help people in other countries, but HOW we should help them. In a post-pandemic world, there are those who advance ever stronger arguments for ending poverty through debt cancellation, robust institutions and international co-operation. Critics of development aid, however, see it as wasteful, ineffective and enabling corruption: ‘poor people in rich countries subsidising rich people in poor countries’. Others view the sector as a legacy of European colonialism, citing Band Aid’s portrayal of Africa as emblematic of the ‘White saviourism’ ingrained in the system. Others, meanwhile, believe the best way to help people is to bypass institutions altogether, and give cash directly to individuals to make their own decisions about how to spend it. 40 years on from Michael Buerk’s landmark report from Ethiopia, how should we help the global poor? Chair: Michael Buerk Producer: Dan Tierney Assistant producer: Ruth Purser Panellists: Ash Sarkar Anne McElvoy Inaya Folarin Iman Carmody Grey

56 分鐘
8月15日

Should Foreign Tourism Be Discouraged?

In recent weeks tens of thousands of protesters have taken to the streets in Spain’s most popular tourist destinations. From Málaga to Mallorca, Gran Canaria to Granada, locals are revolting against what they see as the hollowing out of their communities with the buying up of properties to turn them into short-stay holiday lets for people they argue don’t respect their locality, culture or language. UNESCO has described the situation as "totally out of balance". On one level this is an argument about economics, but the implications are profoundly moral. People shouldn’t feel like second-class citizens in their own towns, but we also recognise the freedom to move, rest and discover. The affordability of travel makes mass tourism possible, but it’s lamented by those who see it as selfish, narcissistic and damaging to native cultures and the environment. And yet travel supposedly broadens the mind and the soul – a cultural exchange that can be a catalyst for self-improvement, make us more empathetic, and provide a livelihood for host communities. Should foreign tourism be discouraged? Or if it’s mass tourism we’re worried about, what can we do about it without holidays becoming an elitist pursuit? Producer: Dan Tierney Assistant producer: Ruth Purser Panel: Giles Fraser Sonia Sodha Ash Sarkar Tim Stanley Witnesses: Guillem Colom-Montero Jim Butcher Anna Hughes Emily Thomas

57 分鐘
8月8日

What do the riots say about Britain?

The past week of brutish, hate-filled riots has been a disturbing time for Britian’s minority communities. What started as a protest against the murder of three little girls in Southport has swept the country for days, fuelled by the spread of mis-information on social media. The cause of the anger is starkly contested. For some, they are racist far-right agitators and opportunist thugs, whipped up by populist politicians and commentators. For others they represent a deeper unease about successive immigration and social policies which have left people feeling ignored, marginalised, even despised by politicians and mainstream media. The ideological divide is between those who see ‘diversity as strength’ and those who think unlimited tolerance breeds its own intolerance. For all the images of burning cars, racist graffiti and violent looting, there is another side to the story: those who help in the clear up, who show solidarity with their Muslim neighbours, and who make clear their opposition to racist hatred. What should we make of the riots? And, if there is more that unites us than divides us, what should we be doing to improve relations between communities? Producer: Dan Tierney Assistant Producer: Ruth Purser Chair: Michael Buerk Panel: Ash Sarkar Konstantin Kisin Mona Siddiqui Tim Stanley Witnesses: Matt Goodwin Ashraf Hoque Adrian Hilton Kieran Connell

57 分鐘
8月1日

Is anything sacred?

One moment in the Olympics opening ceremony in Paris clearly touched a nerve: the tableau of mostly drag queens believed to be parodying Da Vinci’s ‘Last Supper’. Organisers have since denied this was the intention and apologised for the offense caused. Many commentators, including non-believers, declared it “blasphemous”, and “a denigration of Western culture”. While others, Christians among them, considered that response to be an over-reaction. Stepping back from the immediate and perhaps predicable outrage drawn along culture war lines, is the deeper question of what we consider to be ‘sacred’ and ‘profane’ in a largely secular Western society. What, if anything, is sacred? Does the idea only make sense in relation to the concept of God? Does it have a moral function or is it more about personal spirituality? Maybe nothing is sacred, since categorising something as such puts it beyond scrutiny? Or can the concept be widened, even secularised, to take in, for example, the idea of ‘profaning’ the natural world or hollowing out the things we hold to be of value by turning them into commercial transactions? Are the concepts of ‘sacred’ and ‘profane’ still important? And if so, what role do they have in the 21st century? Producer: Dan Tierney Assistant producer: Ruth Purser Panel: Anne McElvoy Giles Fraser Ash Sarkar Tim Stanley Witnesses: Melanie McDonagh Andrew Copson Fergus Butler-Gallie Francis Young

56 分鐘

顯示全部 (232)

4.7

（滿分 5 顆星）

48 則評分

A great show

2023/10/13

angrylf

Always thought provoking and enjoyable even when the panel is marred by the presence of shallow, gotcha-types like Melanie Phillips - there is almost always someone to move the discussion forward when she(or someone like her) gets into ‘right/left’ outmoded dogma. Overall great.
Great Show

2012/04/08

PatrickBH

I am a new listener but a big fan of this program. The format reminds me of appellate argument, with a panel of judges, each thoroughly educated on the topic and proceeding from a contrasting ideological starting point, cross-examining experts, each of whom advocates a certain position on the subject under discussion. That format permits the discussion to progress quickly to the crucial problems of each issue, which most typical interview and discussion programs rarely do.
Good, but please fix

2020/05/01

Boss fuj

Very good podcast, but need the interrupting between people to stop!
Engaging

2012/07/15

Temperance420

Thoughts are well articulated, easy to understand, very interesting