Edinburgh Moral Maze Group

With the ethos of Respecting the Person, whilst Challenging the Idea, we'll be discussing questions, thoughts and opinions that arise for us around the following episode:

Science and Morality from June 2011:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b011jv8m

Blurb from the Beeb - written by the BBC at the time of the show:

You wouldn't have thought that a book on the latest discoveries in the science of human behaviour would be high on the reading lists of politicians, but think again. David Brooks' The Social Animal is required reading for politicians on both sides of the Atlantic. When he visited the UK a couple of weeks ago he had meetings with both the Prime Minister and leader of the Labour Party. Politicians, it seems, are increasingly turning to disciplines like neuroscience and evolutionary anthropology to understand why we do things, so they can better tailor and design policies that will work in the real world.

That all sounds very sensible, but how far should we take this new found enthusiasm for scientifically designed political policies? As science increasingly begins to explain our behaviour it is also challenging our assumptions about moral and social values. For millennia our moral reasoning has been guided by first principles - theology and philosophy. Should we embrace rather than fear the knowledge science brings as it helps unravel some of morality's muddles that have so far defeated our greatest thinkers? We almost un-questioningly accept that science can be used to improve our physical wellbeing, but why shouldn't it be used to make us better people? If neuroscience can change our understanding of human behaviour - and misbehaviour - why should it not be used to frame our laws, our ethics, our morality, to make the world a better place?

Combative, provocative and engaging debate chaired by David Aaronovitch with Claire Fox from the Institute of Ideas, the Catholic commentator Clifford Longley, neurobiologist Kenan Malik and Matthew Taylor Chief Executive of the RSA as the panel.

With Professor Joshua Green Director of the Moral Cognition Lab at Harvard University, Giles Fraser Canon Chancellor of St Paul's Cathedral, Professor Gerry Coyne from the Dept of Ecology and Evolution, University of Chicago and Raymond Tallis retired Clinical Neuroscientist and Philosopher making up the 'witnesses'.

All roles were those held by the individuals at the time of broadcast - in 2011.

Our discussions do not need to be limited by or to the points raised within the show, but having listened to the differing opinions shared within the episode beforehand can be helpful to foster a thoughtful discussion.

With the ethos of Respecting the Person, whilst Challenging the Idea, we'll be discussing questions, thoughts and opinions that arise for us around the following episode:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00zf34d

The Medicalisation of Misbehaviour from March 2011:

Blurb from the Beeb - Blurb written by the BBC at the time of the show

Are we too willing to excuse bad behaviour as the morally-neutral symptom of newly-defined mental disorders?

The 'DSM' - The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, the Bible of American psychiatry - is reported this week to be debating whether to recognise 'sex addiction' as a treatable medical condition.

Private 'rehab' clinics say that more and more clients are seeking treatment for sex addiction. Those who have already undergone therapy for it include Russell Brand, Tiger Woods and Michael Douglas.
So should we tear up the seventh commandment and replace it with 'If you commit adultery you should seek therapy'?

We could replace a few more commandments. In place of 'Remember the Sabbath', 'Thou shalt not covet', 'Thou shalt not steal' and 'Honour thy father and mother', we could have 'Recognise that you may be a workaholic, a shopaholic or a kleptomaniac, or that you may have Oppositional Defiant Disorder.'

If any socially-unacceptable behaviour is a symptom of a condition that can be treated with drugs or therapy or both, where does that leave those quaint old moral terms good and bad, right and wrong?

Are we nowadays too willing to excuse bad behaviour as the morally-neutral symptom of some newly-defined mental disorder?

Or is medical science finding new ways to diagnose and treat the causes of deviance where traditional morality has failed?

Combative, provocative and engaging debate chaired by Michael Buerk with former Conservative Cabinet Minister Michael Portillo, the Catholic writer Clifford Longley, Melanie Phillips social commentator on the Daily Mail and Neurobiologist Kenan Malik.

With Paula Hall author and Psychotherapist specialising in Sexual Addiction, Professor Richard Bentall from the Dept of Clinical Psychology at Liverpool University, John King writer and producer of Living with ADHD and Dr Hannah Pickard Philospher of Mind and Psychiatry at the Oxford Centre for Neuroethics making up the 'witnesses'.

All roles were those held by the individuals at the time of broadcast - in 2011.

Our discussions do not need to be limited by or to the points raised within the show, but having listened to the differing opinions shared within the episode beforehand can be helpful to foster a thoughtful discussion.

With the ethos of Respecting the Person, whilst Challenging the Idea, we'll be discussing questions, thoughts and opinions that arise for us around the following episode:

Friendship from Oct 2011:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b015p86x

Blurb from the Beeb - Blurb written by the BBC at the time of the show.

In other circumstances, being loyal to a longstanding friend would be hailed as a positive character trait. Liam Fox has just discovered that is not necessarily the case in politics - especially if you're the defence secretary. Mr Fox has maintained he's done nothing wrong, but has apologised for allowing distinctions to be blurred between his professional responsibilities and personal loyalties to his friend Adam Werritty. Senior civil servants are carrying out an investigation to see if ministerial codes of conduct on conflicts of interest have been breached.

The affair raises important questions about the kind of politicians we want.

In our quest for transparency and moral blamelessness are we in danger of imprisoning our politicians in a Westminster bubble, sterilised from the influences and realities of the world outside?

it also raises the question for all of us, what are the moral boundaries of friendship?

The nature and obligations of friendship has occupied philosophers down the centuries. Aristotle regarded friendship as essential to the good life, but it can also cloud and call in to question our judgment. It's easy to throw around charges of nepotism and we all pay lip service to the modern ideals of a meritocratic society, but in tough economic times, what is wrong with giving a helping hand to a friend? And would bankers have so nakedly pursued their own self-interest, rather than those of their company, if it had been a family firm?

In a world that relies increasingly on social networks and connections does it sound hopelessly old fashioned to say that we cross a moral boundary when we mix business and friendship and ask someone to offer practical help as well as sympathetic ear? And when it comes to our family, our children, how many of us would balk at the idea of doing anything we could to further their interests?

How to win friends and influence people - the Moral Maze.

Combative, provocative and engaging debate chaired by Michael Buerk with Claire Fox, Clifford Longley, Anne McElvoy and Michael Portillo.

Witnesses:
Professor Matthew Flinders, Department of Politics, University of Sheffield
Mark Vernon, Author of the Meaning of Friendship
Carole Stone, Networking 'expert' and author 'Networking: The Art of Making Friends'
John Drummond, Founder Integrity Works

All roles were those held by the individuals at the time of broadcast - in 2011.

Our discussions do not need to be limited by or to the points raised within the show, but having listened to the differing opinions shared within the episode beforehand can be helpful to foster a thoughtful discussion.

With the ethos of Respecting the Person, whilst Challenging the Idea, we'll be discussing questions, thoughts and opinions that arise for us around the following episode:

Human Rights Act from Oct 2011:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b015cnys

Blurb from the Beeb - Blurb written by the BBC at the time of the show.

It's blamed for everything it seems from stopping us deporting terrorists to allowing prisoners the right to watch sport on TV. Looking at the press the Human Rights Act could do with a new PR agency.

The act enshrines the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law. And Home Secretary Theresa May is the latest to fire a broadside at it. The Act should be scrapped and replaced with a British Bill of Rights she says and this week she announced plans to change the law so that foreign criminals may no longer be able to avoid deportation by claiming a "right to family life."

The coalition has set up a commission to report on the possibility of bringing in a Bill of Rights for the UK to replace the Human Rights Act, by the end of the year.

Is the Act protecting and promoting our fundamental rights and liberty?

Or is it a criminal's charter that makes a mockery of British justice?

How should we best balance the public good and the private entitlement?

How would we in Britain define human rights differently from the European Convention?

Are rights granted by the state or grounded in more fundamental values such a religion?

With the changing nature of society and the moral values that it holds dear, is their even such a thing as an inalienable human right?

Witnesses
James Bartholomew - Author of "The welfare state we're in"
Shami Chakrabarti - Director of Liberty
Jonathan Cooper QC - Human Rights Lawyer at Doughty Street Chambers
David Conway - Professor of Philosophy at the University of Essex

Combative, provocative and engaging debate chaired by Michael Buerk with Clifford Longley, Kenan Malik, Melanie Phillips and Michael Portillo.

All roles were those held by the individuals at the time of broadcast - in 2011.

Our discussions do not need to be limited by or to the points raised within the show, but having listened to the differing opinions shared within the episode beforehand can be helpful to foster a thoughtful discussion.

If people are keen we'll head to the pub after to continue chats.