Moral Maze

“The Morality of Nationalism”

/ Matthew Clemente / Leave a comment

“The Morality of Nationalism”

That was the issue being debated on the BBC’s Moral Maze podcast.  An appropriate topic given the current state of affairs in the Ukraine, where nationalism plays a central role.  

Here is a description of the podcast from the BBC website: 

This week the Moral Maze looks at the morality of nationalism. In Ukraine and the UK people are fighting and in the former case dying over the idea and the ideals of nationhood. Those are just the biggest headlines today; without pausing to think too hard you might add Syria, the Basque and Catalan regions of Spain and Tibet to the list and that’s just from the news in the last seven days – let alone going further back in history to the breakup of Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Chechnya and Ireland. Nationalism and the struggle for national identity is a complex moral puzzle. What makes nationalism such a powerful and morally problematic force in our lives is the interplay of old feelings of communal loyalty and relatively new beliefs about popular sovereignty. On the one hand it undoubtedly expresses something deep in human nature – a yearning for self-determination and justice. But it can also come with darker tribal undertones of “us” and “them” and has been seen all too often through ethnic cleansing and genocide. To what extent should people be permitted to act on the basis of loyalty to those to whom they are specially related by culture, race or language? Are there benign forms of nationalism? Should enlightened people repudiate nationalism? What value should we attach to cultural diversity? Given the current examples of how nationalism can sometimes seem to be a force for good, and sometimes a force for very great evil what are the moral underpinnings of nationalism?

Combative, provocative and engaging debate chaired by Michael Buerk with Melanie Phillips, Anne McElvoy, Matthew Taylor and Giles Fraser.

Witnesses are John Breuilly, Edward Lucas, Philippe Legrain and Gideon Calder

“Public health vs individual freedom”

/ Matthew Clemente / Leave a comment

“Public health vs individual freedom”

This was the title of the most recent episode of the BBC’s Moral Maze podcast.  The programme fosters an interesting (although admittedly, at times, dry) debate about the role of the state in regulating public health and its limits.  For instance, do you have an individual right to Twinkies? Does the should the state regulate the size of sodas (NYC)?

Here is a description of the show:  

When should society step in and save us from ourselves? Our apparently insatiable appetites for smoking, drinking and eating are all in the news this week, but where and how should we draw the line between individual freedom and public health? Is it purely a utilitarian calculation; that the consequences are such a drain on the national purse that we can no longer afford the luxury of letting people do what they want? Or does that just reduce the value of our bodies to the lowest common denominator – the bottom line on a balance sheet? And even if we could afford it, should the common good outweigh individual freedom? Is expecting other people to pay for the consequences of our own behaviour immoral? And what if we could invent a cheap and effective pill to allow us to drink as much as we want without suffering a hangover, or eat what we like without the risk of diabetes? We might herald the scientific advance, but would it make us better humans? Is there something morally, as well as corporally corrupting about defiling our bodies with intoxicants and excess? Or does that sound hopelessly Victorian and censorious in an age that has come to prize self-indulgence and hedonism almost as much human rights? Are policies to control our appetites the worst kind of nanny-statism that punishes the responsible and infantilises the rest or a sensible response to a public health crisis?

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

“Public health vs individual freedom”

/ Matthew Clemente / Leave a comment

“Public health vs individual freedom”

This was the title of the most recent episode of the BBC’s Moral Maze podcast.  The programme fosters an interesting (although admittedly, at times, dry) debate about the role of the state in regulating public health and its limits.  For instance, do you have an individual right to Twinkies? Does the should the state regulate the size of sodas (NYC)?

Here is a description of the show:  

When should society step in and save us from ourselves? Our apparently insatiable appetites for smoking, drinking and eating are all in the news this week, but where and how should we draw the line between individual freedom and public health? Is it purely a utilitarian calculation; that the consequences are such a drain on the national purse that we can no longer afford the luxury of letting people do what they want? Or does that just reduce the value of our bodies to the lowest common denominator – the bottom line on a balance sheet? And even if we could afford it, should the common good outweigh individual freedom? Is expecting other people to pay for the consequences of our own behaviour immoral? And what if we could invent a cheap and effective pill to allow us to drink as much as we want without suffering a hangover, or eat what we like without the risk of diabetes? We might herald the scientific advance, but would it make us better humans? Is there something morally, as well as corporally corrupting about defiling our bodies with intoxicants and excess? Or does that sound hopelessly Victorian and censorious in an age that has come to prize self-indulgence and hedonism almost as much human rights? Are policies to control our appetites the worst kind of nanny-statism that punishes the responsible and infantilises the rest or a sensible response to a public health crisis?

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

Moral Maze: Boycotting the Sochi Winter Olympics

/ Matthew Clemente / 10 Comments

Moral Maze: Boycotting the Sochi Winter Olympics

With the Sochi Winter Olympics starting later this evening, I think it is fair to say that most Westerns assume that there is symbolic value in boycotting the games in protest of Russia’s human rights violations, particularly as they relate to homosexuals.  However, the most recent episode of the Moral Maze questions this assumption and debates the moral utility of Olympic boycotts.  Several of the “witnesses” of the programme assert that Olympic boycotts are useless.  They argue that, particularly with reference to Russia anti-gay policies, gay athletes would be better served competing and beating the Russians rather than sitting out the games.  They cite Jesse Owens at the 1936 Games in Nazi Germany.  What better way to show the absurdity of Hitler’s claims of “Aryan superiority” than an African American running faster and jumping further than Nazi “uberman.”

Here is a brief description of the podcast:

Are sporting boycotts of events like the Winter Olympics effective or just empty gestures?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03jdw6y

/ Matthew Clemente / Leave a comment

What Is The Role of the Police?

This was question being explored on the most recent episode of the BBC’s Moral Maze podcast.  Given that I have been studying criminal procedure this past semester, this has been a particular relevant question.

Here is a description of the podcast:

“Plebgate”, the Hillsborough disaster, evidence of blatant fixing of crime statistics – by any standards our police have come under searching scrutiny lately and haven’t exactly come out with flying colours. So this week’s report by a former commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, John – now Lord Stevens – on the future of policing is certainly timely. But this is more than just a debate about numbers, structures and complaints procedures, this is a fundamental question about what our police should be for. Lord Stevens says it’s time to accept that police “are not simply crime fighters”, but they should also have a “social mission” that should be enshrined in law which would incorporate improving safety and well-being within communities. We’ve come a long way since the days of the Sweeney catchphrase “get your trousers on – you’re nicked”, but do we want our police to take on the mantle of social workers as well as crime fighters? Is this mission creep by the police, or an abdication of our own responsibility? By widening the scope of what we expect our police to police are we in danger of turning them from law enforcers, in to enforcers of social norms? And that this will lead to a subjective understanding of what society regards as right and wrong and blur the moral line between what is and isn’t a crime?