President Trump has imposed tariffs on all America’s trade; China has hit back; other nations, including our own, are working out how to cope with what Sir Keir Starmer has called a “new world” governed by “deals and alliances” rather than rules. In this crisis, we have turned to the economists, who argue about percentages. But shouldn't we be asking – what is the moral thing to do?

Trump’s ‘MAGA’ project always said it wanted tariff barriers to revive US industry and rebalance world trade; the American voters chose that strong medicine; now they – and the rest of the world – must swallow it. The first question is not whether it will work; time will tell. The first question is: given the consequences for the whole world, does Trump have a moral right to exercise that mandate?

The second question is the one that confronts Britain, and all the other nations that have been reliant (perhaps too reliant) on trade and co-operation with America. It is not about numbers but about morality. The three most influential economic philosophers in history – Adam Smith, Karl Marx and J.M.Keynes – reached different conclusions about it.

Is free trade a moral good?

Chair: Michael Buerk

Panel:

Witnesses:

The Netflix drama ‘Adolescence’ has prompted a national conversation about a ‘crisis of masculinity’. In a society where gender roles are changing, progressive attitudes are in tension with traditional ideas about male behaviour.

Studies suggest Gen Z men and women are more divided than those of any other generation on questions about feminism, gender roles and women’s rights. Meanwhile, teachers highlight the alarming prevalence of misogyny in schools, influencers can be influential than parents, and social media algorithms amplify misogynistic content to teens. This is happening at the same time as rising rates of depression, anxiety, and a higher likelihood of suicide among young men.

Traditional ideas about ‘manliness’ - strength, dominance, independence, and emotional stoicism - are seen in many contexts as inappropriate and harmful – both to men and women. While the feminist movement and women’s advances in education and the workplace, for example, are a mark of social progress, some believe they have also challenged men’s sense of purpose in a way that has perhaps been overlooked. Others think this analysis is dangerous because it doesn’t apply to all men, it sets up men's mental health and wellbeing in opposition to the opportunities of women, and denies some men the agency to make the right choices. At the same time, it can be uncomfortable to discuss how men and women are different – physically and psychologically – and how they might have different and complementary roles.

Do we need to re-define or reclaim masculinity? What’s wrong with men?

Chair: Michael Buerk

Panel:

Witnesses:

Proposed new guidance from the Sentencing Council for England and Wales – which is due to come into effect in April – would make the ethnicity, faith or personal circumstances of an offender a bigger factor when deciding whether to jail them. The independent body is responsible for issuing guidelines “to promote greater transparency and consistency in sentencing”.

Official figures show that offenders from ethnic minorities consistently get longer sentences than white inmates for indictable offences. Supporters of the guidance see it as an important correction of implicit bias within the justice system, leading to the most effective balance of punishment and rehabilitation for the individual. But critics – including the Justice Secretary – are concerned it will create "two-tier justice". As Shabana Mahmood put it: "As someone who is from an ethnic minority background myself, I do not stand for any differential treatment before the law, for anyone of any kind". How much should judges consider an offender’s background?

Questions about the “fairness” of sentencing are the symptom of a wider disparity within the justice system: the fact that black and Muslim men are disproportionately represented in the prison population, and how that might be addressed. How much is it the mark of a “rigged” society, which traps multiple generations in poverty and deprivation? How much is it about family and community dysfunction and a lack of role models?

How just is our justice system?

Chair: Michael Buerk

Panel:

Witnesses:

Sir Keir Starmer has called the current benefits system unsustainable, indefensible and unfair, and said it was discouraging people from working while producing a "spiralling bill". The Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood has said there is a “moral case” to cut the welfare budget ahead of the Chancellor’s Spring Statement. Spending on sickness benefits, including a rise in mental health disability claims since the pandemic, is forecast to increase to around £100bn before the next general election. Ministers have complained that people are incentivised to be out of work, encouraging some to "game the system". Poverty charities have expressed deep concerns about what they see as the disproportionate impact of any cuts on the poorest and most vulnerable.

Debates around welfare spending can never escape the language of morality, in often moralising terms. Phrases like ‘benefits scroungers’ are emotive and can encourage knee-jerk judgment. To paraphrase words ascribed to both Thomas Jefferson and Ghandi: the measure of a society is how it treats its weakest members.

But welfare is morally complex. While it is an important safety net, at what point does it disempower people to pursue a better life, encourage passivity rather that self-reliance, and foster self-entitlement over personal responsibility? Even if we could discern these things, we live in an imperfect world. Life is a lottery. What some perceive as ‘lifestyle’ choices, others argue are often made from few options, due to entrenched structural inequalities. How much is this really a matter of nurturing individual moral character and virtue? Is there a moral case for cutting welfare?

Chair: Michael Buerk

Panel: Anne McElvoy, Giles Fraser, Sonia Sodha and James Orr.

Witnesses: Grace Blakeley, Tim Montgomerie, Miro Griffiths and Jean-Andre Prager.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has expressed his "gratitude" for US military support. It comes after the heated exchange in the Oval Office, where President Trump and Vice-President Vance told Zelensky he was not thankful enough. Cicero referred to gratitude as "the parent of all virtues", but like all virtues, it plays a complex role in our moral life.

Ancient philosophers like the stoics and modern positive psychologists agree that recognising what we have rather than longing for what we don’t have can reduce anxiety and foster happiness. Expressing gratitude, they say, helps to build trust and deepens bonds between people, creating a sense of community and reciprocity. In difficult times, gratitude can provide perspective, allowing individuals to focus on what matters rather than being overwhelmed by hardship.

Gratitude sceptics, however, think that a perpetual state of thankfulness might not be that good for us. An over-emphasis on gratitude, they suggest, can make people passive and discourage ambition or protest in situations that demand change in our lives. The idea of a ‘thankless task’ implies that the absence of gratitude is sometimes necessary for virtue to exist. When gratitude is socially expected, it can damage relationships; it can feel transactional and forced rather than sincere, making it a tool for control and manipulation rather than authentic appreciation.

Whether expressing thanks is healthy or not depends on the circumstances, which requires discernment. So when should we be grateful?

Chair: Michael Buerk

Panel:

Witnesses:

Three years on from the invasion of Ukraine, President Trump has called President Zelensky a 'dictator', leaving many to conclude that the US has sided with Russia. We have entered a new phase of an already unstable global order. Keir Starmer meets Donald Trump this week. How should Britain respond? Emphasise friendship in the hope of gaining influence in Washington or stand up to Trump in the knowledge that it will damage relations?

On Ukraine, there are those who argue it’s clear cut: Putin is the dictator, Zelensky is a war hero, and sometimes we have to fight for our values no matter the sacrificial cost. But Trump’s supporters believe ending the war is the moral priority, and if peace comes at the cost of land, that’s a deal worth doing.

But History tells us that realpolitik only gets us so far. Bluntly, Trump’s detractors don’t see him as a rational actor on the world stage, pointing to his plan for Gaza. Domestically, they say, he’s behaving like an authoritarian dictator. To his followers, Trump is an important disrupter who is shaking America and the West out of its complacency.

Where should lines in the sand be drawn in negotiations? When is it better to be pragmatic than principled? When should moral conviction trump realpolitik?

Chair: Michael Buerk

Panel:

Witnesses:

In every species, including homo sapiens, the family is nature’s way of passing inequality down the generations. The family gives us our genetic make-up and a large proportion of our training, education, socialisation and cultural attitudes. It may bequeath to us wealth or poverty. None of this is fair.

Should we get cross about silver spoons and livid about nepotism? We don’t seem to. Inheritance tax is deeply unpopular (not just with farmers). And it's not merely money that tilts the scales when a child is born. There's the where and when of it, there's parental character and competence, there are genetic pluses and minuses. How should we, as a society, address the unfairness that results from inherited advantage? And how can we know whether it’s made a difference? Everyone claims to want equality of opportunity. Some of us want to measure our success by equality of outcome; the rest of us say ‘dream on.’

Should we aim to eradicate or compensate for inherited inequality? Should we try to correct for the effects of genetic and environmental misfortune? Or should we just accept that, in the words of William Blake, 'Some are Born to sweet delight. Some are Born to Endless Night'?

Chair: Michael Buerk

Producers: Dan Tierney and Peter Everett.

Here are the instructions for your office Christmas party, issued by the Public and Commercial Services Union: “Sexual harassment and inappropriate behaviour are just as unacceptable at social events as they are in the workplace. This includes unwelcome comments, gestures or physical actions. Alcohol is not a defence for such conduct and employers are obligated to address these issues seriously.”

Chair: Michael Buerk

Producer: Dan Tierney

After decades of despotism, Syria is facing an uncertain but cautiously hopeful future - though many are sceptical about the sort of government that will replace the dynastic Assad regime. While Syria has endured 13 years of civil war, another shock has been the unravelling of South Korea, formerly a beacon of stability, with the president's short-lived attempt to declare martial law. And then there is Donald Trump looking to pardon the US Capitol rioters, who wanted to overthrow the government on January 6th 2021. Even in liberal democracies, it seems, power is above the law. So much for the moral superiority of democracy?

What does all this say about us? Surveys suggest democracy doesn't matter as much to younger generations. Strongman authoritarians abound and are admired across Europe and beyond. Meanwhile in the UK, the gap between the share of votes won in the 2024 general election and the share of Parliamentary seats is the largest on record.

Is democracy still the best, most efficient and most moral from of government?

Chair: Michael Buerk

Producer: Dan Tierney

The allegations about Gregg Wallace’s behaviour on set have been described as being part of a "toxic environment". Once primarily used in the domain of plants, arrows and chemicals, “toxic” - which is defined as “poisonous” – only relatively recently started being applied to workplaces and people: parents, siblings, neighbours, exes and co-workers.

Those who have experienced a toxic work culture or colleague might describe a deterioration in their personal and professional well-being – the causes of which may be difficult to define – or prove – on their own. While sexual harassment, racism, and bullying should be clearly understood, a toxic environment may involve more subtle things at play: a lack of trust, favouritism, unrealistic expectations or an atmosphere of negativity.

But what are we to make of a concept which hinges on how an aggrieved person feels rather than the defined behaviour of the perpetrator? Is it an important redress for those who have for too long suffered in silence – or an over-compensation which irredeemably labels the wrongdoers? What should – and shouldn’t – we be prepared to accept in a workplace or in a relationship? If a boss sets a negative tone in an office, due to their own pressures and stresses, does that make them “toxic”? When does an off-colour joke become “toxic”? Is it possible to detoxify cultures like the entertainment industry, which thrives on the egos of the “talent”? And when is it OK to cut off a “toxic” relative?

Chair: Michael Buerk

Producer: Dan Tierney