Moral Maze

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

AI data centres are expanding across the UK and around the world. Tech giants and governments see them as essential infrastructure for future prosperity; the engines of economic growth, scientific innovation, improved healthcare and national security. Advocates believe they will bring about the next technological leap forward for humanity.
But there are always trade-offs. Critics point to the immediate environmental costs; the demand for electricity, water and land. They question whether the promised rewards justify the sacrifices, particularly for local populations who face the disruption of new developments while the economic benefits go elsewhere.
Are we, as a society, being swept along by an AI 'arms race' we didn’t consent to? Are we right to put faith in tech billionaires who prophesy a future of progress and human flourishing, or are we simply enabling more consumption? (Every video of Elon Musk as Austin Powers drinks around 4 litres of water). And even if AI promises to solve climate change and eradicate disease, how much are we willing to place on that bet today?
Chair: Michael Buerk
Panel: Giles Fraser, Mona Siddiqui, Andrew Copson and Ella Whelan.
Witnesses: Owen Espley, Michael Tobin, Carissa Véliz, Carlo Cordasco.
Producer: Dan Tierney
Assistant producer: Peter Everett
Editor: Tim Pemberton

Reform's Robert Jenrick has described Britain’s welfare system as “suicidal empathy.” It’s also the title of a recent book by the Canadian marketing Professor Gad Saad, who argues that a misdirected sense of empathy can lead to favouring certain people over others – for example, the criminal over the victim. The idea has gained an admirer in Elon Musk who said that "the fundamental weakness of Western civilization is empathy". The claim is that unconditional compassion is not a strength but a soft spot to be exploited, clouding our moral judgements.
Critics argue that empathy is the moral foundation of care for the most vulnerable in society and righteous anger against injustice. They see the language of “toxic” or “parasitic” empathy as laying the groundwork for inhuman treatment. Rousseau saw pity as the most natural of human virtues – an instinct which makes us not simply walk on by when we see someone suffering. Removing empathy, in other words, makes us both less human and less humane.
Whether in the realm of welfare policy, immigration numbers or prison conditions, the philosophical argument is between those who say feeling for others is the foundation of morality, and those who believe empathy can be a moral liability.
Chair: Michael Buerk
Panel: Mona Siddiqui, Tim Stanley, Sonia Sodha and Ella Whelan.
Witnesses: Matt Goodwin, Paul Sagar, Philippa Smethurst and Luke Bretherton.
Producer: Dan Tierney
Assistant producer: Peter Everett
Editor: Chloe Walker

Michael Buerk chairs a special debate from the Hay Festival examining the morality of networks.
The release of the Epstein files has been a reminder that power often flows not just through formal institutions, but through webs of connection: political friendships, old school ties, and professional circles. There's been focused attention on how influential networks operate, and how access, opportunity and protection can follow. Critics say such cases expose a world where success depends less on merit than on who you know.
But networks are not confined to the wealthy or the powerful. From journalism and politics to business, academia and religion, informal relationships shape how institutions actually work. People rely on contacts for jobs, introductions and advice. Trust is built through familiarity. Sociologists call this “social capital”, the networks of relationships that allow communities and organisations to function. Anthropologists go further: humans are a networked species, whose survival has long depended on cooperation, loyalty and mutual obligation.
The moral tension is that the same instincts that create trust also draw boundaries. Networks build solidarity, but they also decide who is inside and who is left outside. Opportunity, influence and sometimes harm can circulate within closed circles. What looks like loyalty from the inside can look like exclusion from the outside.
So when does social capital become social injustice? Are networks the glue of society, or the architecture of privilege?
Chair: Michael Buerk;
Panel: Anne McElvoy, Matthew Taylor, Mona Siddiqui and Ella Whelan;
Witnesses: Aaron Reeves, George Pitcher, Andrew Graystone, Julia Hobsbawm;
Producer: Dan Tierney;
Editor: Tim Pemberton.