Moral Maze

Relations between Britain and the United States have rarely been described as simple, but they have long been called special. Yet in recent days that relationship has come under strain, after a sharp exchange between Donald Trump and Keir Starmer over the latest international crisis and Britain’s response to it. For more than eighty years the United Kingdom has defined its place in the world partly through its alliance with the United States. But moments like this raise uncomfortable questions about how Britain should act amid a shifting global order. Some argue that foreign policy must ultimately be guided by national interest. In an uncertain world, they say, Britain cannot afford to jeopardise its most important alliance. Presidents come and go, but the strategic relationship between the two countries endures. In that view, the moral case is one of engagement, diplomacy, influence and the long-term security and prosperity of British citizens. Others believe that alliances cannot come at the expense of values. The Canadian prime minister Mark Carney recently warned that the world has entered an “age of rupture”, where the rules and norms that once governed international relations are beginning to fray. When Britain disagrees with its closest ally – particularly on questions of war and peace – it has a responsibility to defend those principles, even at the risk of friction or isolation. So in these extraordinary times, should foreign policy be guided primarily by principle or by pragmatic self-interest? What should the balance be between ethical idealism and strategic reality? Can interests and values truly align? And ultimately, what is the role of morality in foreign policy? Chair: Michael Buerk Panel: Matthew Taylor, Giles Fraser, Ash Sarkar and Tim Stanley Witnesses: Jan Halper-Hayes, Peter Oborne, Christopher Hill, Jamie Gaskarth Producer: Dan Tierney Assistant Producer: Jay Unger Editor: Chloe Walker.

Conflict has deepened in the Middle East since the United States and Israel launched a coordinated wave of air and missile strikes across Iran, targeting military facilities, nuclear sites and the country’s leadership. Supporters argue the attacks were necessary. Iran’s missile programme, its support for armed proxies across the region and its long-running nuclear ambitions have convinced some Western leaders that waiting would only make a future conflict far more dangerous. In that view, striking first may be grim, but it is sometimes the least bad option. Others frame the issue in terms of human rights. Iran’s government has long been accused of brutal repression at home, imprisoning dissidents, violently suppressing protests and enforcing strict controls over women’s lives. To some, confronting such a regime is not simply a matter of strategic calculation but of moral responsibility. But critics see something more troubling: the deliberate bombing of a sovereign state without international authorisation and with potentially catastrophic consequences. Iran has already retaliated with missiles and drones across the region, targeting U.S. bases and cities in Gulf states, while Iran-backed militias have joined the fight. And the human cost is becoming clearer. A missile strike on a girls’ school in southern Iran reportedly killed at least 150 people, many of them children, though the circumstances remain disputed. While many Iranians are celebrating the death of their Supreme Leader, others are sceptical about the human rights motives of the strikes. Is it moral to attack Iran? Chair: Michael Buerk Panel: Matthew Taylor, Anne McElvoy, Mona Siddiqui and James Orr. Witnesses: Barak Seener, Simon Mabon, Shiva Mahbobi, Jeff McMahan. Producer: Dan Tierney Assistant Producer: Jay Unger Editor: Tim Pemberton.

What is truth? In a special edition of The Moral Maze, we discuss perhaps the most significant question in all of human thought. It sits at the foundation of how we understand reality, and how we communicate and behave towards one another. The obvious answer is that the strongest possible way to arrive at the truth in a shifting world of AI and authoritarian control is through a commitment to empirical data and provable facts. However, this can only ever get us so far because truth is always told from somewhere. Even objective facts can be curated from one perspective. Stories about ourselves and the world have been necessary, alongside partial data, to keep the social order and to prevent us from being overwhelmed. The historian uses limited sources to tell a story about our past. Language constrains how we articulate who we are, what we do and how we think and feel. Where science falters in expanding the horizons of truth, artists and theologians step in with their own insights that truth can be discovered through poetry and mysticism. That’s before the postmodernists come along and state that what we think of as truth is constructed rather than discovered; that the ‘truth’ we seek doesn’t really exist; that it’s all a fiction to give our lives meaning and purpose. Chair: Michael Buerk Panel: Mona Siddiqui, Giles Fraser, Anne McElvoy and Ash Sarkar Witnesses: Charlie Beckett, Fay Bound-Alberti, Mark Vernon and Hilary Lawson Producer: Dan Tierney.

Tommy Robinson's carol concert claimed to be "putting Christ back into Christmas". Church of England Bishops quickly pointed out that Christ never went away and warned about Christmas becoming another proxy in the culture wars. Many of Robinson's supporters are turning to Christianity. Some have openly stated that the Christian faith is a cultural ballast, representing British freedoms and values, and a defence against a perceived threat posed by Islam and immigrants. For others, Christianity and Christmas is being appropriated in the most un-Christian way, the Holy Family were persecuted refugees, and a central message of Jesus was one of radical hospitality for the stranger. This year, Christmas comes at the time of a wider debate about so-called "civilizational erasure" in Europe, following the publication of America's National Security Strategy. It boldly states that, within a few decades, NATO members will be "majority non-European", encourages the resistance - and praises the influence - of "patriotic" European parties, including Alternative fur Deutschland (AfD) in Germany, a far-right anti-immigration party. Is a full-throated defence of Christmas a sign of strength or weakness? What's the bigger threat to Europe: "cultural erasure", or far-right populism? Chair: Michael Buerk Panel: Giles Fraser, Inaya Folarin-Iman, Anne McElvoy and Matthew Taylor Witnesses: Chris Wickland, Krish Kandiah, Eric Kaufmann and Adrian Pabst Producer: Dan Tierney.

As Australia begins its pioneering social media ban for under-16s, governments around the world will be watching closely. The move, which represents a significant challenge to Big Tech's dominance, aims to protect children from online harms like cyberbullying, grooming, exposure to violent/misogynistic content, as well as anxiety and depression linked to excessive screen time and addictive platform designs. Should other countries, including the UK, follow suit? Evidence suggests social media ‘doom scrolling’ changes our brainwave activity, affecting attention spans (children are reading less than in the past), altering reward pathways with dopamine ‘hits’, and influencing emotional regulation and social processing (combined with a decline in outdoor play). Critics argue a blanket social media ban treats all under-16s as a homogeneous risk group, denying them moral agency, rather than distinguishing between responsible and problematic use. Others fear a loss of mainstream online community spaces could lead to further isolation and push some teenagers toward more dangerous platforms or behaviours. Should children be banned from social media? Chair: Michael Buerk Panel: Carmody Grey, Mona Siddiqui, Giles Fraser and Anne McElvoy Witnesses: Jennifer Powers, Timandra Harkness, James Williams and Tony D Sampson. Producer: Dan Tierney

The jury trial has been around for almost 1,000 years. Magna Carta, in 1215, enshrined the principle that “No free man shall be... imprisoned… except by the lawful judgement of his peers.” That could be about to change, under the proposal by the Justice Secretary, David Lammy, to restrict jury trials to the most serious cases. The aim is to deal with an unprecedented backlog in the courts. Britain, thus far, has been in the minority: most countries around the world rely on judges – not juries – to evaluate the evidence, assess guilt, and deliver justice. Those in favour of juries see them as a moral institution, putting justice in the hands of randomly-selected ordinary people, rather than those of the state or a legal elite, and so reducing the chance of a biased or blinkered verdict. Opponents argue that juries can be obstacles to justice, not immune to prejudiced decisions, and lacking the expertise to weigh up the evidence in complex cases. While some see the jury system as a redundant relic of the past, others believe the deliberative democratic principle it embodies should be extended to other areas of public life in innovative ways. Should we, as some suggest, replace the House of Lords with a second chamber full of randomly-selected representative voters? Those in favour of citizen juries in politics, as well as in the governance of public institutions, believe they can provide greater democratic legitimacy and lead to better decisions, through a combination of lived experience and expert guidance. Those against citizen juries say they undermine a fundamental democratic principle: one person, one vote. Chair: Michael Buerk Panel: Matthew Taylor, Inaya Folarin-Iman, Tim Stanley and Mona Siddiqui Witnesses: Sir Simon Jenkins, Fiona Rutherford, Anna Coote and Tom Simpson Producer: Dan Tierney.

The Dutch historian Rutger Bregman, whose BBC Reith Lectures start this week, is calling for a moral revolution to change our societies for the better, charting how small groups of committed people – abolitionists, suffragettes, and temperance activists – have brought about positive social change. Politics, Bregman argues, is in trouble in an age of apathy and backsliding democracy: “The moral rot runs deep across elite institutions of every stripe”, he says, “if the right is defined by its shameless corruption, then liberals answer with a paralyzing cowardice”. So where might our moral salvation come? What are the deep values that underpin our contrasting political worldviews – left and right – and which should we look to prioritise now? Does any part of the political spectrum have the greatest claim to morality? Chair: Michael Buerk Panel: Matthew Taylor, James Orr, Mona Siddiqui and Tim Stanley. Witnesses: Tim Montgomerie, Eleanor Penny, Joanna Williams, Paul Mason Producer: Dan Tierney.

The Channel 4 documentary, ‘Hitler's DNA: Blueprint of a Dictator’ has carried out a controversial genetic analysis of the Nazi leader. The test shows "very high" scores - in the top 1% - for a predisposition to autism, schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. This not a diagnosis, however, and there have been concerns about whether such speculation stigmatises these conditions. While we shouldn’t seek to explain a person’s moral character and actions simply through genetics, there are many other aspects of our lives we can’t control, and which can nevertheless influence our behaviour and the judgements of others. These, include our upbringing and the circumstances we happen to be placed in (war, oppression, abuse) as well as the outcome of our actions (e.g. whether someone happens get away drink-driving, or not). If this is all a question of moral luck, how much should it be taken into consideration in our judgments of others? And where does that leave human agency, responsibility and culpability? One view is that moral blame should be based solely on someone’s intentions and the choices they make. Moral responsibility, it’s argued, rests on rational will, and unlucky life chances should not excuse bad or criminal behaviour. However, in the criminal justice system, mitigating circumstances, while not excusing bad behaviour, are presented to reduce the severity of a person's culpability. How do we untangle what is in someone’s control, and what is a matter of luck, when it comes to the combinations of nature and nurture that make up the people we are? If we focus too much the things we can’t control, would we ever be able to make any moral judgments at all? Or should we think more about the presence of moral luck in our everyday lives and work harder to understand rather than blame? Chair: Michael Buerk Panel: Matthew Taylor, Sonia Sodha, Jonathan Sumption and Inaya, Folarin-Iman. Witnesses: Kirsty Brimelow, Peter Bleksley, Susan Blackmore and David Enoch. Producer: Dan Tierney

This year’s John Lewis Christmas advert puts an emotional focus on a father-son relationship. It shows a dad and his teenage boy struggling to put their feelings into words. It points to what many observe as a wider crisis in fatherhood. Numerous studies suggest that an involved father significantly improves a child's life chances. However, in the UK, a teenager is more likely to own a mobile phone than live with their dad, according to a 2025 report from the Centre for Social Justice. The reasons are complex. Traditionalists cite changing gender roles leading to conflicting societal expectations on men and a confusion of male identity. Progressives suggest the pressure on dads to be strong for their family, both financially and emotionally, makes it difficult for them to demonstrate vulnerability, and that leads to guilt, stress and burnout. Youth workers report how the lack of a male role model at home can make space for other damaging influences - in the real world and online, in gangs and in the “manosphere” - pushing a very narrow definition of masculinity, and begetting more ill-equipped fathers. What should be the role of a father, practically, emotionally and morally? How, if at all, should it be different from that of the mother? Do we expect too much or too little of fathers? Do children always need fathers in their lives? How should we address the ‘rinse-and-repeat’ cycle of absent fathers? Chair: Julie Etchingham Panel: Carmody Grey, Giles Fraser, Anne McElvoy and James Orr. Witnesses: Tony Rucinski, Genevieve Roberts, Anton Noble, Ed Davies. Producer: Dan Tierney.

Later this month, millions of demonstrators are due to take to the streets across the USA for a second time, under the banner “No Kings”. Organisers say, “America has no kings, and the power belongs to the people”. They are mobilizing to protest against what they see as democratic backsliding during Trump’s second presidency. Faith in democracy has been shaking all over the world. Recent Pew research suggests that, since 2017, public dissatisfaction with democracy far outweighs satisfaction across 12 high-income countries, including the UK, France and Germany. There are different interpretations of what’s causing this, and how to fix it. Some observers think that Trump’s more controversial policies – from DOGE to attacks on elite institutions to the dismantling of DEI programmes – could have been inspired by the ideas of Curtis Yarvin, a computer engineer turned political theorist. He's known for founding an anti-democracy philosophical movement called ‘The Dark Enlightenment’, dismissing America's democratic values and instead calling for the return of an absolute monarchy, run by a 'CEO' figure. Are democratic values a fiction, designed to prop up the elites? Or are they the only safeguard we have against tyranny? Chair: Michael Buerk Panel: Carmody Grey, Ash Sarkar, Anne McElvoy and Inaya Folarin-Iman Witnesses: Curtis Yarvin, Mike Wendling and Andrés Velasco Producers: Dan Tierney and Peter Everett *This is a special episode of the Moral Maze recorded at ‘How The Light Gets In’ philosophy and music festival: https://howthelightgetsin.org/festivals/hay

Prime Minister Kier Starmer has described the UK’s formal recognition of a Palestinian state as a “moral duty”, saying the change in policy would, "revive the hope of peace and a two-state solution". The rising number of UN members following suit this week, marks a turning point in their approach to Israel since it began its war against Hamas in Gaza, following the October 7th atrocities. In that time, tens of thousands have been killed and more than one million displaced by Israel's military offensive. Why is Palestinian statehood recognition a ‘moral duty’ now, as opposed to decades ago? Does it put pressure on Israel to push for a ceasefire or does it reward terrorism? Does it represent moral leadership or gesture politics and hypocrisy? The Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that he had long opposed a Palestinian state because it would constitute “an existential danger to Israel”. Meanwhile, over a century of colonial legacies, wars, and failed diplomatic endeavours has led to scepticism that Palestinians’ aspirations for equality and freedom can ever be achieved. To what extent is the recognition of Palestine a moral priority in such a long and intractable conflict between two peoples who have competing claims to land, and who see the other as a threat? Chair: Michael Buerk Panel: Matthew Taylor, Giles Fraser, Mona Siddiqui and Tim Stanley. Producer: Dan Tierney

Graphic details of Charlie Kirk’s death have been almost unavoidable on social media in recent days. Similarly, shocking footage of an unprovoked knife attack on 23-year-old Iryna Zarutska on a train in Charlotte, North Carolina last month, has been widely circulated. Add to that the videos coming out of Gaza, Ukraine or Sudan. Seeing such images changes us. We can’t unsee them. They shock us, anger us, frighten us, stir our empathy, shift our moral compass. Do we have a moral duty to watch real-life violence order to gain a deeper understanding of a situation? For example, would George Floyd’s death have had the same imaginative power if it hadn’t been filmed? Or is the truth-seeking instinct sometimes misplaced, driven by morbid curiosity and voyeurism, risking desensitisation, compassion fatigue or, conversely, chronic anxiety and stress? Do such stark images give us a moral anchor in a storm of spin and misinformation, or are we in danger of missing important context and using the intimately personal moment of a human death as a weapon in a heated political arena? With social media moderators being cut and TV news channels under pressure to beat the competition for pictures, what does the choice to publish and consume ever more extreme content say about us, and the dignity of those whose lives and deaths we are a witness to? When should we choose to see or not to see – to know or not to know? Chair: Michael Buerk Panel: Giles Fraser, Sonia Sodha, James Orr and Tim Stanley. Witnesses: Paul Conroy, Hilda Burke, Jamie Whyte and Rik Peels. Producer: Dan Tierney.

The party conference season kicked off with claims and counter claims about the viability of Nigel Farage’s proposals for government. One issue that unites Reform and Kemi Badenoch’s Conservatives is scrapping the 2050 net zero target, echoing US President Donald Trump's pledge to "drill, baby, drill" and embark on new oil and gas exploration. This is a turbulent time in international politics. The prospect of achieving a global consensus on climate action seems a forlorn hope. What’s more, critics of the UK net zero target argue that the costs will cause a decline in living standards for little overall benefit. Forget economic arguments: what is the moral thing to do in the face of a warming planet, rising sea levels, more extreme weather, food and water insecurity, and human displacement? Readers of Immanuel Kant might be tempted to invoke his ‘categorical imperative’, a moral rule that says you should act in a way that you would want to apply to everyone, regardless of your personal desires or the potential outcomes of your actions. In climate terms, it means pursuing net zero as a moral good in itself. Utilitarian ethics, however, says that the right action is the one producing the most happiness and the least unhappiness for the greatest number of people. Therefore, it could be argued that the detrimental consequences of pursuing net zero in the UK, combined with its questionable global benefit, make it immoral. Is ‘net zero’ a moral pursuit? Chair: Michael Buerk Panellists: Matthew Taylor, Ella Whelan, Giles Fraser and Anne McElvoy. Witnesses: Maurice Cousins, Alice Evatt, Tony Milligan and Sorin Baiasu. Producer: Dan Tierney

Live debate examining the moral issues behind one of the week's news stories.

The decision of OnlyFans and Instagram to ban the porn star Bonnie Blue, who engaged in sequential sex with more than a thousand men in 12 hours, indicates the strength of the backlash of disapproval to the stunt. The reaction of many people has been what the psychologist Jonathan Haidt calls 'moral bafflement', the idea that most of us instinctively condemn some behaviours without being able to say why they are wrong. Western morality says, “don’t hurt other people”, but Bonnie Blue arguably hurt nobody. This was understood to be safe sex between consenting adults (although the psychological or social impact is harder to determine). Others might form their judgments based on values within sacred texts, but religion is no longer the moral and cultural force it once was. How much attention should we pay to our knee-jerk sense of right and wrong when judging the actions of other people? Evolutionary psychologists describe how the emotion of disgust was a survival mechanism against the spread of disease. Thus, ritual purity, enforced by religious edict, was vital for the moral and spiritual life of our ancestors. But does disgust still carry moral weight in a modern, secular, and technologically advanced society, or is it merely an evolutionary hangover? Just because we think something is wrong, how do we know that it is? And do we have the right, as a society, to translate our instinctive disapproval into prohibition? What is the moral value of disgust? Chair: Michal Buerk Panellists: Ash Sarkar, Tim Stanley, Anne McElvoy and Matthew Taylor. Witnesses: Stacey Clare, Julie Bindel, Jussi Suikkanen, John Haldane. Producer: Dan Tierney

The Bank of England has been accused of being the 'Bank of Wokeness' after proposing to cut historical figures from banknotes. Images of Winston Churchill, Jane Austen and Alan Turing could be replaced by images of themes such as nature, innovation, or key events in history. It raises the possibility of British birds, bridges, or bangers and mash featuring on the next series of £5, £10, £20 and £50 notes and would take us down the route favoured by the Euro which feature many an imaginary structure or window. But what do we lose when we potentially erase these historical figures from a place in our pocket? Are they problematic figures who are essentially divisive? Or are we discarding important figures who achieved greatness and still embody moral values? Is the concept of heroism one we need to reject altogether or do stories of human endeavour still represent the best way to promote culture and identity? PANEL: Anne McElvoy, Ash Sarkar, Matthew Taylor, Tim Stanley WITNESSES: Paul Lay, Historian Maddy Fry, Writer and Journalist Professor Simon Goldhill, Historian Professor Ellis Cashmore CHAIR Michael Buerk PRODUCER: Catherine Murray ASST PRODUCER: PETER EVERETT PRODUCTION CO-ORDINATOR: Pete Liggins

Are we at risk of becoming “an island of strangers”? The Prime Minister, backtracking on many fronts, has apologised for the phrase - he says he hadn’t read it properly before he said it – but he’s backed a grand-sounding Independent Commission that’s now at work to fix a society it says is a “tinderbox of division”. Is it? Social attitude surveys suggest we’re one of the most tolerant countries on earth. What do we mean by social cohesion? Is it something wider than community cohesion? What about the class divisions? Is it important for us all to mix with each or a natural human instinct to cleave to those who are like you? Is social cohesion a moral good in itself? And is ‘getting on with each other’ something that can be achieved by government fiat? PANELLISTS: INAYA FOLARIN-IMAN, LORD JONATHAN SUMPTION, PROF MONA SIDDIQUI, SONIA SODHA WITNESSES: MATTHEW SYED, Journalist SIMON LEVINE from ODI, a global affairs think tank JULIE SIDDIQI, Community relations consultant RAVI GURUMURTHY, CEO of NESTA, the UK innovation foundation for social good Chaired by Michael Buerk PRODUCER: Catherine Murray ASST PRODUCER: Peter Everett EDITOR: Tim Pemberton

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 Historian PANELLISTS: Rev Dr Giles Fraser Anne McElvoy Lord Jonathan Sumption Matthew Taylor Chaired 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 Pemberton Panel: Mona Siddiqui Tim Stanley Matthew Taylor Inaya Folarin-Iman Witnesses: 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 Ansari Panellists: Carmody Grey, Giles Fraser, Inaya Folarin-Iman , Mona Siddiqui Presenter: Michael Buerk Producer: Catherine Murray Assistant Producer: Peter Everett Editor: Tim Pemberton