Podcast
Moral Maze
Hosted by BBC Radio 4 · EN
Combative, provocative and engaging live debate examining the moral issues behind one of the week's news stories. #moralmaze
11episodes
Episodes
Newest firstAll episodes
What Makes Us Human?
6d ago00:57:17Tap to summarizeIn his first encyclical, Magnifica Humanitas, Pope Leo XIV warned that artificial intelligence threatens the dignity of the human person.Human exceptionalism - the belief that we are special, both within the animal kingdom and in the eyes of God - rests on a single distinction. We don't just think. We know that we're thinking. We have moral agency. Our religions tell us we have souls. That distinction is now under threat from two directions simultaneously.Firstly, we have discovered that the creatures we share this planet with are vastly more capable than we thought. Animals we considered simple-minded - octopuses, bees, parrots, elephants - can plan, learn, teach and use tools. Some display altruism, grief, loyalty and shame.Secondly, artificial intelligence and biotechnology are acquiring the characteristics we thought were uniquely ours. AI is developing personality, intentionality and self-awareness at a speed that has no historical precedent. The quantum computer, which Richard Feynman imagined less than half a century ago, is now being built. And in our laboratories, researchers are growing neuron networks and may soon create hybrid creatures combining animal instinct with human-like reasoning. Only our ethics stand in the way.If the boundaries between human, animal and machine are dissolving from both directions, the question is no longer academic. What - if anything - makes us morally exceptional?Chair: Michael Buerk Panel: Ash Sarkar, James Orr, Mona Siddiqui and Tim Stanley Witnesses: Steve Cooke, John Milbank, Nick Bostrom and Carmody Grey Producer: Dan Tierney Assistant producers: Peter Everett and Liberty Phelan Editor: Tim Pemberton.
Transcribe →Is the World Cup morally compromised?
2w ago00:57:36Tap to summarizeThe 2026 World Cup is the biggest in the tournament's history, with 48 teams playing 104 matches across three countries: The United States, Mexico and Canada.For many, this summer's competition reveals that the game has drifted irreversibly from its working-class roots. Ticket prices are prohibitive for ordinary fans. FIFA's governance has been dogged by corruption scandals. Money and power have thoroughly colonised its institutions. And human rights groups warn this tournament will be a “bonanza of sportswashing”, consciously deployed by a US administration conducting mass deportations of migrants, many of them Latin American, as soft-power cover.But others argue that markets set prices and fans made their choice. Commercialisation is the price of the game's global reach and football's globalisation has been a democratic force. Free-to-air coverage means the World Cup remains genuinely universal. For supporters of nations qualifying for the first time in decades, this is pure, uncomplicated joy. Some contend that those who weaponise sport for political protest are doing exactly what they accuse Trump of: subordinating the game to an agenda. And if moral purity were the admission criterion, no tournament would ever be staged anywhere.Is the World Cup morally compromised?Chair: Michael Buerk Panel: Ash Sarkar, Giles Fraser, Matthew Taylor and Jonathan Sumption Witnesses: Minky Worden, Mark Littlewood, Kieran Maguire and Graham Spiers Producer: Dan Tierney Assistant Producer: Peter Everett Editor: Chloe Walker
Transcribe →Who is morally responsible for Britain's political short-termism?
3w ago00:57:18Tap to summarizeA Labour leadership challenge would mean Britain could have a seventh prime minister in a decade. Each change of leadership promises renewal, but each delivers fresh disappointment. Meanwhile the problems compound: crumbling infrastructure, polluted waterways, a cost-of-living crisis, a planet warming faster than our policy responses. Why can't a mature democracy fix things it can clearly see are broken?In the late 1960s, Stanford psychologist Walter Mischel devised a deceptively simple test of human nature. A child is left alone with a single marshmallow and a choice: eat it now, or wait fifteen minutes and receive two. It measures willpower, impulse control, and the capacity to sacrifice immediate satisfaction for a better long-term outcome. Mischel's follow-up studies found that children who waited tended to grow into healthier, better-educated, more emotionally stable adults. But subsequent researchers identified a crucial caveat: children from unstable backgrounds, used to broken promises, were entirely rational to eat immediately, since they didn't trust that the second marshmallow would ever arrive.Britain, it could be argued, is living through its own national marshmallow test, and the results are troubling. Critics of the current political settlement point out that politicians face structural incentives to fix today's headlines rather than next decade's crises. The five-year electoral horizon means anything beyond it risks being kicked down the road: HS2, the infected blood scandal, Net Zero. Voters, burned by serial betrayal, rationally demand immediate relief on bills, welfare and petrol prices, even when the long-term cost is severe. And hovering over the whole system is the media. Twenty-four hour news demands a fresh scoop every hour, and social media algorithms reward outrage over reflection. If politicians are punished for nuance and rewarded for noise, and voters are algorithmically nudged towards the most inflammatory version of every story, is the entire information environment now rigged against long-term thinking?If voters rationally distrust politicians, and politicians rationally pander to voters, who bears the moral responsibility for our collective short-termism? And crucially, who bears the responsibility for breaking the cycle? Is it about radical institutional or electoral reform? Does it require a more uncomfortable kind of leadership: politicians willing to tell hard truths, and voters willing to reward them? Who should bear the brunt of any short-term pain? Can we demand courage from leaders we've trained to be cowards? And if so, how do we first rebuild the trust – and the information environment – that makes waiting for the second marshmallow feel rational again?Chair: Michael Buerk Panel: Mona Siddiqui, Tim Stanley, Ash Sarkar and James Orr Witnesses: Paul Dolan, James Williams, Sonia Purnell and Karl Pike Producer: Dan Tierney Assistant producer: Peter Everett Editor: Tim Pemberton
Transcribe →What is education for?
Apr 900:57:20Tap to summarizeUniversities across the country are cutting back on humanities courses – philosophy, history, modern languages – subjects long seen as central to a well-rounded education. The reason is familiar: falling student numbers, financial pressure, and a growing insistence that degrees must demonstrate clear economic value. If a course doesn’t lead to a well-paid job, why should anyone fund it? That points to a deeper divide about what education is for. Is it an intrinsic good: valuable in itself, shaping critical thinking, moral judgment, and an understanding of the world? Or is it an extrinsic one: a means to an end, justified by the jobs it produces and the growth it delivers?For centuries, from Socrates onwards, education has been tied to human flourishing – to forming citizens, not just workers. But today, the language has shifted. Students are consumers. Universities compete. Courses are judged by salary. And the tensions don’t stop there. If education is a public good, why does access remain so uneven, divided between state and private schools, with women significantly underrepresented in STEM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics) – opportunity shaped as much by background as by ability? And as our understanding of neurodiversity deepens, a further challenge emerges. What if the system itself – built around standardisation, testing, and conformity – has actively hindered the prospects of many it was meant to serve?So what, ultimately, is education for? Is it possible to maximise economic potential and enable every individual to flourish? And if our system does the former at the expense of the latter, can it still claim to be a moral one?Chair: Michael Buerk Panel: Mona Siddiqui, Tim Stanley, Carmody Grey and Giles Fraser. Witnesses: Maxwell Marlow, Julian Baggini and Jess Wade and Chris Bonnello. Producer: Dan Tierney Editor: Tim Pemberton.
Transcribe →Artemis 2 and the ethics of human space flight
Apr 200:57:16Tap to summarizeToday, humanity reaches towards the Moon once more. The first crewed lunar mission in more than 50 years. But as NASA’s Artemis 2 lifts off, some troubling moral questions follow in its wake.Are the billions of pounds being spent a visionary investment in our future, or a luxury we can't afford while poverty, disease, and a climate crisis demand urgent action here on Earth?Who benefits from space exploration? The wealthy nations that lead it or all of humanity? Is there really a moral imperative to explore the possibility of how to live on other planets? And ... as we venture outwards, do we risk repeating the mistakes of colonial expansion?That's our Moral Maze tonight ... the ethics of human space flightWITNESSES: Dr Simeon Barber, Lunar Scientist at Open University; Dr Stuart Parkinson, Executive Director of Scientists for Global Responsibility; Dr Tony Milligan, Philosopher in Space Ethics; Mary-Jane Rubenstein, Professor of Religion and Science in Society at Wesleyan University PANELLISTS: Carmody Grey, Anne McElvoy, James Orr and Sonia Sodha PRESENTER: William Crawley
Transcribe →Is an Established Church Morally Defensible?
Mar 2700:57:33Tap to summarizeThe Church of England marks a historic moment: the installation of its first female Archbishop of Canterbury. A symbol, many would say, of progress in an institution often accused of resisting it. And yet, even as she takes office, around 600 churches reportedly refuse to recognise the authority of ordained women. For them, this is not prejudice but principle. An adherence to theological conviction.It comes amid fresh scrutiny about the Church’s place in national life - from Prince William signalling a more modern, personal relationship with it, to the Green Party reopening the question of disestablishment. The Church of England is not just a religious body. As the established church, it is entwined with the state. Its bishops sit in Parliament. Its role extends, at least in theory, to the whole nation. It claims to be “a church for everyone.” And yet it operates with exemptions from equality law, particularly in its approach to women’s leadership and same-sex relationships. Defenders argue that religious freedom must include the freedom to dissent from prevailing social norms. Critics counter that an institution with constitutional privilege cannot also claim the right to discriminate.But there is a further tension. The Church speaks as a national institution at a time when fewer people identify with it at all. Attendance has declined steadily. Belief itself is becoming more marginal in a society that is increasingly secular. For many citizens, religion is not just optional but irrelevant.So what does establishment mean in such a society? Should the Church be brought into line with equality law or separated from the state altogether? And more fundamentally: can an established church still claim moral authority in a nation that is steadily moving away from it?Chair: William Crawley. Panel: Carmody Grey, Tim Stanley, Mona Siddiqui and Anne McElvoy. Witnesses: Andrew Copson, Bishop David Walker, Jonathan Chaplin and Rev Charlie Bączyk-Bell. Producer: Dan Tierney Assistant producer: Jay Unger Editor: Tim Pemberton.
Transcribe →Economic shocks: is there a duty to accept sacrifice?
Mar 1900:57:30Tap to summarizeRising oil prices triggered by war have renewed fears of an economic shock. Governments are already under pressure to step in: to cap prices, cushion bills and shield households from the consequences. Yet crises were once understood differently. During earlier shocks, citizens were often told to tighten their belts, to accept rationing, higher prices and shared sacrifice. But memories of past hardship can also be misleading. There is sometimes a tendency to romanticise earlier generations’ stoicism. Today the assumption seems different: if living standards fall, the government must intervene.The idea of sacrifice raises difficult questions. Who exactly is the “we” being asked to shoulder the burden? A rise in energy costs may be uncomfortable for some but devastating for those already living precariously. Hardship is rarely shared equally. If sacrifice is demanded, how should it be distributed? There is also a deeper question about what we mean by sacrifice at all. The word is often used simply to mean going without. Yet traditionally it carried a stronger philosophical meaning: the willingness to give something up for a higher purpose or the common good. Some argue that modern democracies have become reluctant to ask citizens for such things, fearing the political cost. Governments promise protection instead, even when the resources to deliver it are limited.And yet the challenges ahead may demand difficult choices. From energy shocks to climate change, societies may have to decide whether they are prepared to accept lower living standards in pursuit of wider goals. So in a democracy, should citizens expect protection from every crisis? Does the government have a duty to be open and honest with us about the hard choices we face? Or do we have a duty to accept sacrifice when circumstances demand it?Chair: Michael Buerk Panel: Matthew Taylor, Ash Sarkar, James Orr and Ella Whelan. Witnesses: James Bartholomew, Grace Blakeley, Rupert Read and Adrian Pabst Producer: Dan Tierney Assistant producer: JayUnger Editor: Tim Pemberton
Transcribe →Pragmatism and Principle: what is the role of morality in foreign policy?
Mar 1200:57:17Tap to summarizeRelations 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.
Transcribe →Is it moral to attack Iran?
Mar 500:57:17Tap to summarizeConflict 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.
Transcribe →What Is Truth?
Dec 2400:56:49Tap to summarizeWhat 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.
Transcribe →