Episodes
Title | Repeated | Comments |
---|---|---|
20170614 (R4) | Combative, provocative and engaging debate chaired by Michael Buerk. | |
20170621 (R4) | Combative, provocative and engaging debate chaired by Michael Buerk. | |
Summary | 20171101 (BBC Radio 4) 20050216 20081122 20081126 20081129 20081203 20081213 20081217 20081220 20090204 20090207 20090211 20090214 20090218 20090221 20090225 20090228 20090304 20090307 20090603 20090606 20090610 20090617 20090624 20090701 20090708 20090711 20090715 20090718 20090722 20090725 20091014 20091017 20091021 20091024 20091028 20091031 20091104 20091107 20091111 20091114 20091118 20091121 20091125 20091128 20091202 20091205 20091209 20091212 20100203 20100206 20100210 20100213 20100217 20100220 20100224 20100227 20100303 20100306 20100310 20100313 20100317 20100320 20100324 20100327 20100331 20100403 20100602 20100609 20100616 20100623 20100703 20100707 20100710 20100714 20100724 20101020 20101023 20101027 20101030 20101103 20101106 20101110 20101113 20101117 20101120 20101124 20101127 20101201 20101204 20101208 20101211 20101215 20101218 20110122 20110126 20110202 20110205 20110209 20110212 20110216 20110219 20110223 20110226 20110302 20110305 20110309 20110312 20110316 20110319 20110420 20110423 20110427 20110430 20110504 20110507 20110511 20110514 20110518 20110521 20110525 20110528 20110601 20110604 20110907 20110914 20110921 20110928 20111001 20111005 20111008 20111012 20111015 20111109 20111112 20111116 20111119 20111123 20111126 20111130 20111203 20111207 20111210 20120208 20120211 20120215 20120218 20120222 20120225 20120229 20120303 20120307 20120310 20120314 20120317 20120321 20120324 20120328 20120331 20120613 20120620 20120627 20120704 20120711 20120718 20120721 20120725 20120728 20120801 20120804 20121010 20121013 20121017 20121020 20121024 20121027 20121031 20121103 20121107 20121110 20121114 20121117 20121121 20121124 20121128 20121201 20121205 20121208 20130130 20130202 20130206 20130209 20130213 20130220 20130223 20130227 20130302 20130306 20130309 20130313 20130316 20130320 20130323 20130327 20130330 20130619 20130626 20130703 20130710 20130717 20130724 20130731 20130807 20131009 20131016 20131023 20131030 20131106 20131113 20131120 20131127 20131204 20131211 20140205 20140212 20140219 20140226 20140305 20140312 20140319 20140326 20140618 20140621 20140625 20140628 20140702 20140705 20140709 20140716 20140723 20140730 20140806 20141015 20141022 20141029 20141105 20141112 20141119 20141126 20141203 20141210 20150204 20150211 20150218 20150225 20150304 20150311 20150318 20150325 20150610 20150617 20150624 20150701 20150708 20150715 20150722 20150729 20150805 20151014 20151021 20151028 20151104 20151111 20151118 20151125 20151202 20151209 20160210 20160217 20160224 20160302 20160309 20160316 20160323 20160330 20160608 20160615 20160622 20160629 20160706 20160713 20160720 20160727 20160803 20161005 20161012 20161019 20161026 20161102 20161109 20161116 20161123 20170201 20170208 20170215 20170222 20170301 20170308 20170315 20170322 20170329 20170614 20170621 20170628 20170705 20170712 20170719 20170726 20170802 20170809 20190206 20190213 20190220 20190227 20170719 (R4) 20170726 (R4) 20170802 (R4) 20170809 (R4) 20171011 (R4) 20171018 (R4) 20171025 (R4) | Combative debate examining the moral issues behind one of the week's news stories. Combative, provocative and engaging debate chaired by Michael Buerk with Michael Portillo, Anne McElvoy, Matthew Taylor and Claire Fox. Combative, provocative and engaging debate chaired by Michael Buerk. Combative, provocative and engaging debate chaired by Michael Buerk with Melanie Phillips, Kenan Malik, Matthew Taylor and Claire Fox. Bloody Sunday, Leveson, Hillsborough, Chilcott, Mid Staffordshire NHS, Savile - just some of the more notable examples of public inquiries of the last few years and hardly a week goes by without a call for another hearing into some perceived scandal or injustice. MPs, police, journalists, NHS carers, local government, the church - it seems there's hardly any major institution left in this country that hasn't been undermined by scandal and in the name of 'transparency' many institutions seem willing, even eager, to expose their inner workings and problems. At the heart of these cases there are of course victims who need answers and redress and we're told that by exposing these institutions or organisations to transparent public scrutiny "lessons will be learnt". Institutions are an essential component of civil society; a focus for shared values and solidarity; can we expect our institutions to function properly in an atmosphere of constant critical scrutiny? Has this ever growing clamour for inquiries, often fuelled by freedom of information requests, just undermined their moral integrity? In our pursuit of transparency have we sacrificed the moral authority of some of the very organisations that are vital to the moral wellbeing of our society? In an age dominated by new social networks, is this process an essential part of re-defining social solidarity or is the passion for openness actually generating a kind of corrosive suspicion that destroys trust not just in institutions but in our day-to-day lives? Combative, provocative and engaging debate chaired by Michael Buerk with Michael Portillo, Melanie Phillips, Matthew Taylor and Giles Fraser. Witnesses: Nicholas Rengger - Professor of Political Theory & International Relations, University of St Andrews, Phillip Blond - Respublica, Dr Karl Mackie - Chief Executive, Centre for Effective Dispute Resolution and Oliver Kamm - Leader Writer and columnist for The Times. Newly-released data obtained by the Labour MP David Lammy shows the dominance of the top two social classes at Oxford and Cambridge Universities. Four-fifths of the students accepted between 2010 and 2015 were the offspring of barristers, doctors and chief executives - and the numbers are edging upwards. More offers were made to pupils in the London commuter-belt than in the whole of northern England. Most prime ministers, most judges and a large proportion of those who work in the media went to Oxbridge. It's a route to the top, but according to David Lammy it represents and perpetuates a ruling elite which is "fatally out of touch with the people it purports to serve." Some argue that the admissions bar should be lowered for socially-disadvantaged candidates - that a 'B' from a struggling comprehensive is worth an 'A' from Eton. Some of the top US colleges give weight to an applicant's class to ensure that talented students who have succeeded against the odds are recognised. Others argue that admissions should be based on academic considerations alone, and that the greatest barrier to disadvantaged students is not the entrance criteria of elite universities but the schools that have let them down. For many, social mobility is an intrinsic moral good; they want everyone to achieve their potential regardless of their postcode and they think universities should work towards that. It is, they say, part of their job. Others say their job is simply to be academically outstanding, and if universities mirror social and racial inequalities, that's just a symptom of a bigger problem. Witnesses are Dr Wanda Wyporska, Raph Mokades, Prof Tim Blackman and Prof Geoffrey Alderman. Producer: Dan Tierney. Following claims of rape or sexual harassment made by dozens of women against the movie mogul Harvey Weinstein, a picture emerges of one of the most powerful men in Hollywood exerting pressure on young actresses at the start of their careers, often in hotel rooms and offices. While the allegations of non-consensual sex are denied, the story has prompted a collective soul-searching in Tinseltown and beyond. How was Harvey Weinstein's behaviour tolerated, why did so few people speak out against him, and how many other Weinsteins are out there? Some say this is not an aberration, just a typical example of unrestrained male behaviour. They believe that many men would do the same sort of thing if they thought they could get away with it. For others, the problem has less to do with gender and is more about a general abuse of power. They argue that in showbiz - as in other sectors such as fashion and sport - there is not enough accountability, and there needs to be stricter mechanisms to deal with bullying at work. Central to both those interpretations of the problem is the concept of moral complicity. To what extent are those who tolerate a crime also responsible for it? Do we all have a moral duty to speak out about unacceptable behaviour, even if that comes at huge personal cost? Or are we too quick to label those who knew, and did nothing, as 'hypocrites'? Should we do more to encourage and support the reporting of suspicions? Or is there a danger of creating a society of greater division and mistrust? Witnesses are Ella Whelan, Laura Bates, Prof Josh Cohen and Corinne Sweet. The Moral Maze returns with a special programme marking 50 years of the Abortion Act, recorded in front of an audience of students at UCL Faculty of Laws. Under the 1967 law, terminations were made legal for the first time in limited circumstances, with the agreement of two doctors. By far the most common reason for abortion (accounting for more than 181,000 of the 185,596 abortions in 2016) has been that continuing the pregnancy would risk injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated (as a point of clarification, the introduction to the programme only states the strictest grounds, which account for a very small number of abortions). Social attitudes have changed and many doctors now support the official line of the British Medical Association which wants abortion to be decriminalised completely. So is it time for abortion to be treated like any other medical procedure that is regulated by the General Medical Council? On the other side of the dispute are those who say the Act has been too liberally interpreted. With nearly 200,000 abortions a year in the UK, they say we effectively have 'abortion on demand' and they want the law to be tightened to protect the rights of 'pre-born children' and their mothers. Whatever the details of time-limits and interpretation of the law, the moral dividing line remains as deeply-etched as it was in 1967: it is between those who think a human life starts at conception and those who don't. The Moral Maze has teamed up with Dundee University's Centre for Argument Technology. For the first time, researchers will analyse the debate and use the data to create an interactive web page called "Test your argument", hosted by the BBC's experimental site "Taster" and available via the Radio 4 website after the broadcast. Before the Cava corks had finished popping to celebrate Catalonia's declaration of independence, direct rule was imposed from Madrid, the region's autonomy stripped away; its president sacked. It was a tumultuous few minutes by any country's standards. To some, the Catalan leader Carles Puigdemont is a traitor to Spain who should face criminal charges. To others, he is a Catalan patriot fighting for the region's right to self-determination - a cardinal principle of international law enshrined in the UN charter. When such a right collides with the territorial integrity of a state, competing ideas of democracy emerge. Separatists decry scenes of women being pulled out of polling stations by their hair and the detention of what they call political prisoners. Those sympathetic to the Madrid government are convinced it is they who have the moral high ground and that the actions of Catalan leaders amount to a serious breach of the Spanish constitution. A key moral question centres on what is meant by the "will of the people". In the case of Catalonia, should we base our moral judgements on the 90% who voted for independence in the illegal referendum (which only had a 43% turnout) or on the majority of Catalans who, for whatever reason, didn't vote? Does a democratically-mandated central government have a moral duty to uphold the rule of law for the sake of unity, or can self-determination trump the duty of loyalty to the nation? What are the moral boundaries of self-determination? When, if ever, is a unilateral declaration of independence morally justified? Witnesses: Nicholas Rengger - Professor of Political Theory and International Relations, University of St Andrews, Phillip Blond - Respublica, Dr Karl Mackie - Chief Executive, Centre for Effective Dispute Resolution and Oliver Kamm - Leader Writer and columnist for The Times. |