Moral Maze

Every year, Britain falls silent on Armistice Day. The bugle plays the "Last Post", and we collectively agree: “Never Again”.
At the same time, war has returned to Europe. Governments are increasing defence spending to levels not seen since the Cold War. Politicians speak of a nation “on a war footing” and advise citizens to stockpile emergency supplies. Across Europe, the Far Right is resurging and democracy is under strain. Holocaust ignorance is growing, especially among the young.
So what exactly are we remembering for? What is the value of remembrance beyond an act of collective mourning? If its moral purpose is to prevent us repeating the mistakes of the past, should we conclude that it has failed? If collective memory has the power to shape human behaviour, for better or worse, how should we think about it?
Chair: Michael Buerk
Panel: Giles Fraser, Mona Siddiqui, Tim Stanley and Sonia Sodha.
Witnesses: Amanda Chisholm, Philip Ingram, Alan Lester and Edward Harcourt.
Producer: Dan Tierney
Assistant producers: Jay Ungar and Pater Everett.
Editor: Chloe Walker.

Ed Sheeran says he tries to keep politics off the stage.
But politics gate-crashed his stadium tour anyway -- when the American rapper Macklemore was removed as a support act for delivering a pro-Palestinian speech.
Now Sir Bob Geldof, the man behind Live Aid, says Ed Sheeran's preferred silence isn't political.
Fame, he says, is a currency, and artists get to choose how to spend it
Is he right? Can any artist, whether a musician, a writer, or a painter, stay out of politics? Or is silence itself a kind of political statement too?
This week’s Moral Maze: Can we separate pop from politics?
Presenter: William Crawley
Panel: Andrew Copson, Ash Sarkar, Ella Whelan, Giles Fraser
Witnesses: Tom Phelan, Daniel Rachel, Angela McRobbie, Nick Asbury
Producer: Catherine Murray
Editor: Chloe Walker

Live debate examining the moral issues behind one of the week's news stories. #moralmaze

America’s Vice-President, J. D. Vance, has been talking about the end of the world, saying he “wouldn’t be shocked” if the Anti-Christ was walking amongst us.
Most people are living incomparably better lives than generations ago - and history is full of warnings of apocalypse - so how should we respond to warnings of catastrophe and end times?
Do such warnings encourage moral behaviour? Do they spur people to take action on important issues - or can they lead to despair and paralysis.
Do thoughts of an end give life more meaning?
Should we take threats to the way we live as a warning to look after our loved ones - or is it an opportunity to think more widely and work out how to strengthen our community ties.
Which end of the political spectrum is more likely to resort to the language of doom-laden prophecy, and to what end?
What does this increasingly apocalyptic view of the world tell us about the world we live in, the problems we face, and the society we’ve become?
Witnesses: Leigh Price, Elizabeth Oldfield, Dr Ian Paul and Dr Daniel Nilsson DeHanas
Presenter: Michael Buerk
Panellists: Anne McElvoy, Matthew Taylor, Mona Siddiqui, Tim Stanley
Producer: Catherine Murray
Asst Producer: Jay Unger
Editor Chloe Walker

A record one in seven people in England were prescribed antidepressants in the last year, according to NHS figures. More than nine million patients now take the drugs, and while they may be essential in many cases, the prevalence of mental ill-health – stress, anxiety, burnout – is a moral issue as well as a medical one. Why are more people, including under-18s, presenting to their GP with these conditions, and what should we do about it?
Many clinicians believe anti-depressants serve an important function, including in milder cases, particularly where access to talking therapies is limited. This, they say, is both a practical and compassionate response to suffering, and a respect for patient autonomy. However, there is disagreement among psychiatrists, some of whom argue that everyday stress is being patholigised. They see drugs as morally hazardous in certain cases, since they alter mental sates, blunt emotions and create dependence on the drugs themselves, reducing people’s long-term capacity to cope.
Beyond the clinical response, there are deeper questions to consider about our society and culture. NHS figures suggest patients in the most deprived areas were prescribed antidepressants 44% more than in the least deprived areas. Many mental health campaigners see the crisis as a social harm, caused by poverty, inequality and insecurity. They believe that rather than simply treating the symptoms of distress, we have a social responsibility to fix the structural causes: better housing, secure working conditions, and a fairer distribution of the resources people need to live dignified lives. For others, the crisis represents something even more fundamental: a loss of meaning, purpose, connection, and resilience.
How should we respond to rising mental distress?
Chair: Michael Buerk
Panel: Ash Sarkar, Giles Fraser, Anne McElvoy and Carmody Grey
Witnesses: Ellie Cannon, Joanna Moncrieff, Polly Mackenzie and Mark Vernon
Producer: Dan Tierney
Assistant producer: Peter Everett
Editor: Tim Pemberton