BBC

“The Morality of Remembrance”

/ Matthew Clemente / Leave a comment

“The Morality of Remembrance”

Happy Veterans Day to all those of who have served.  In commemoration of the occasion here is an episode of the BBC’s Moral Maze podcast elegantly entitled “The Morality of Remembrance.”  In England, their version of Veterans Day is Remembrance Day.  Where we have the yellow ribbon, they adorn the poppy flower.  

Although the debate is an English take on the holiday, many of the issues discussed apply in the American context.  For instance, what is patriotism? What should we honoring? How should we be honoring? It is interesting that in the United States the holiday is marked by a status, whether or not one is a veteran; while in England, it is about an act, remembering past wars and warriors.  In a sense, Veterans Day is simpler in the US, we know who and what to honor.  In the United Kingdom, the issue is more contested.  When the holiday is framed in terms of remembrance, the question becomes what should we be remembering? 

“The Morality of Remembrance”

/ Matthew Clemente / Leave a comment

“The Morality of Remembrance”

Happy Veterans Day to all those of who have served.  In commemoration of the occasion here is an episode of the BBC’s Moral Maze podcast elegantly entitled “The Morality of Remembrance.”  In England, their version of Veterans Day is Remembrance Day.  Where we have the yellow ribbon, they adorn the poppy flower.  

Although the debate is an English take on the holiday, many of the issues discussed apply in the American context.  For instance, what is patriotism? What should we honoring? How should we be honoring? It is interesting that in the United States the holiday is marked by a status, whether or not one is a veteran; while in England, it is about an act, remembering past wars and warriors.  In a sense, Veterans Day is simpler in the US, we know who and what to honor.  In the United Kingdom, the issue is more contested.  When the holiday is framed in terms of remembrance, the question becomes what should we be remembering? 

“Genetics and Education”

/ Matthew Clemente / 2 Comments

“Genetics and Education”

In a recent book, G is for Genes: The Impact of Genetics on Education and Achievement, Robert Plomin and Kathryn Asbury explore the science of genetics and the potential impact of genetics on education policy.  Plomin and Asbury argue against the taboo (*eugenics*) surrounding use of genetics to inform education.  G is for Genes is the basis of  recent BBC Moral Maze debate.  

 

Here is a description of the podcast: 

For centuries philosophers and theologians have wrestled with the question of nature versus nurture. Increasingly and for some controversially, the science of behavioural genetics is starting to come up with some of the answers. The argument is perhaps at its most sensitive when applied to education. When it was revealed that Education Secretary, Michael Gove’s outgoing special advisor, Dominic Cummings, called for education policy to incorporate the science behind genes and cognitive development he broke a modern taboo and there was a predictable outcry. In a wide ranging paper Mr Cummings cited the work of Professor Robert Plomin who’s about to publish a book with psychologist Dr Kathryn Asbury which calls for “genetically sensitive” schooling. It’s based on a study of how genes and environment have shaped the development of over 10,000 twins who were studied from birth to early adulthood. The scientists say their work is about probability not prophecy and can be used to personalise education and create better outcomes for all, but fears of genetic determinism are deeply ingrained. How should we use genetics in education? Science is a very long way from knowing exactly which genes influence individual differences in learning but as knowledge in this field advances that time will surely come. We already use genetics to screen for various medical conditions, so why not for learning abilities? And what happens if, or when, the science of genetics becomes so powerful that we can identify different populations that are endowed with different genetic make-ups that we believe are more or less desirable? Is that just a scientific inevitability that we have to come to terms with, or does it open the door to eugenics? How should we use the science of genetics?

“Pornography: What Do We Know?”

/ Matthew Clemente / Leave a comment

“Pornography: What Do We Know?”

That was the question being examined on the BBC’s Analysis radio programme. Here is a description of the show: 

What do we really know about the effects of pornography? 

Public debate has become increasingly dominated by an emotive, polarised argument between those who say it is harmful and those who say it can be liberating. Jo Fidgen puts the moral positions to one side and investigates what the evidence tells us. She explores the limitations of the research that’s been carried out and asks whether we need to update our understanding of pornography. She hears from users of pornography about how and why they use it and researchers reveal what they have learnt about our private pornographic habits. 

With pornography becoming increasingly easy to access online, and as policy-makers, parents and teachers discuss how to deal with this, it’s a debate that will have far-reaching implications on education and how we use the internet. 

Producer: Helena Merriman 

Interviewees: 

Professor Neil Malamuth – University of California 
Dr Miranda Horvath – Middlesex University 
Dr Ogi Ogas – Author of A Billion Wicked Thoughts 
Professor Roger Scruton – Conservative philosopher and Author of Sexual Desire: A Philosophical Investigation 
Professor Gail Dines – Wheelock College, Boston.

The Virtue of Government Transparency

/ Matthew Clemente / Leave a comment

The Virtue of Government Transparency

In the wake of the NSA-Eric Snowden leak, the BBC’s Moral Maze programme debated the virtue of government transparency and its limits.  

Here is a description of the debate: 

The 16th century philosopher Francis Bacon is widely credited with coining the phrase “knowledge is power”. If he was alive today he would surely have appreciated the irony of the government this week launching its consultation on transparency and open data while the news is full of stories about spying and under cover surveillance. The goal of “transparency” has become something of mantra across a wide section of our society. It is held up as a moral virtue; an unambiguously Good Thing that should be pursued at all costs. Vascular surgeons are the latest to have the “spotlight” of transparency shone upon them. The NHS is publishing league tables of their results and doctors who refuse to co-operate will be named and shamed. Transparency has become not just a descriptive term, but an ideology – something that should be actively strived for and is a fundamental human right that underpins democracy. But by investing so much moral capital in transparency have we done the opposite of what those who champion it wanted? Instead of a more trusting society, do we now automatically assume that what goes on behind closed doors is not to be trusted and always capable of being corrupted? Is the CIA whistleblower Edward Snowden a hero who’s exposed the scale of state surveillance on its citizens, or a traitor who has undermined our capacity to fight terrorism? In an age when digital data about every aspect of our life is so easy to generate, how much of a right do “they” have to know about us and how much of a right do we have to know about “them?” Combative, provocative and engaging debate chaired by Michael Buerk with Claire Fox, Melanie Phillips, Anne McElvoy and Kenan Malik. Witnesses: David Leigh – The Guardian’s investigations editor until 2013, and professor of journalism at City University, London UK, Dame Pauline Neville-Jones – Former Chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee, Professor Gwythian Prins – Visiting professor of War Studies Buckingham University and member of the Chief of the Defence Staff’s Strategic Advisory Panel, Shami Chakrabarti – Director of Liberty.