Edinburgh Moral Maze Meetup 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:

Measuring The Nation's Happiness from January 2011

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00xhj84

In April 2011 the government started asking people how happy they are in order to measure the nation's wellbeing for the first time.

The Integrated Household Survey (IHS) asked respondents to rank between one and 10 "how satisfied are you with your life nowadays, how happy did you feel yesterday, how anxious did you feel yesterday and to what extent do you feel the things you do in your life are worthwhile?"

This episode explores some questions this raises and is chaired by Michael Buerk with Melanie Phillips social commentator on the Daily Mail, Matthew Taylor Chief Executive of the RSA, Claire Fox from the Institute of Ideas, and the Catholic writer Clifford Longley as the panel.

And as the 'witnesses', Professor Richard Layard Director of the Wellbeing School at the London School of Economics, Philip Hodson Fellow of British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy, Antony Seldon co-founder of Action For Happiness and Simon Blackburn Bertrand Russell Professorship of Philosophy at Cambridge University.

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.

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.

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

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.

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