twitter instagram facebook link thumbsup hashtag delete
Info Discussion

Thread on episode 80: The Morality of Compromise

Discuss this episode of Moral Maze

Nov 15, 2018 43m

The Prime Minister’s Brexit plan is now on the table, but the table is looking very wobbly. We learned this week that the Chequers proposal, backed by cabinet ministers in July, was not so much a lollipop as a spoonful of castor oil, an “undesirable compromise” to be grudgingly accepted rather than greeted with enthusiasm. When the deal goes to Parliament for approval, will MPs and peers have a moral duty to support Theresa May's compromise, however unsatisfactory they believe it to be? Some will say ‘No, it’s a matter of moral principle to reject it,’ either because it’s not what the country voted for or because it’s not in the nation’s interests, or both. Others will accept that the reality of Brexit has turned out to be very different from the idea; it’s not a yes-no question any more, it’s a deck of political and economic priorities being shuffled and dealt round a crowded poker table. If ever there was a time to play the odds and cut our losses, they insist that this is it. Compromise can be a dirty word, especially where moral conviction is involved. To concede any ground in a deal is to risk being accused of weakness or lack of principle. Conversely, those who refuse to give ground can be seen as impractical or downright mulish. In our politics, our business deals and our personal relationships, how should we balance flexibility and integrity? Producer: Dan Tierney

  • This is a placeholder title for an episode

    Jul 20 2020 1h 30m
  • This is a placeholder title for an episode

    Jul 20 2020 1h 30m
  • This is a placeholder title for an episode

    Jul 20 2020 1h 30m

Other Links

    This is placeholder text
    button play
    username
    10 days ago
    This is a placeholder comment title.
    This is placeholder text. This is placeholder text. This is placeholder text.
    This is placeholder text
    x comments
    username
    10 days ago
    This is a placeholder comment title.
    This is placeholder text. This is placeholder text. This is placeholder text.
    This is placeholder text
    x comments
    username
    10 days ago
    This is a placeholder comment title.
    This is placeholder text. This is placeholder text. This is placeholder text.
    This is placeholder text
    x comments
    username
    10 days ago
    This is a placeholder comment title.
    This is placeholder text. This is placeholder text. This is placeholder text.
    This is placeholder text
    x comments
    username
    10 days ago
    This is a placeholder comment title.
    This is placeholder text. This is placeholder text. This is placeholder text.
    This is placeholder text
    x comments
Nov 15, 2018 43m

The Prime Minister’s Brexit plan is now on the table, but the table is looking very wobbly. We learned this week that the Chequers proposal, backed by cabinet ministers in July, was not so much a lollipop as a spoonful of castor oil, an “undesirable compromise” to be grudgingly accepted rather than greeted with enthusiasm. When the deal goes to Parliament for approval, will MPs and peers have a moral duty to support Theresa May's compromise, however unsatisfactory they believe it to be? Some will say ‘No, it’s a matter of moral principle to reject it,’ either because it’s not what the country voted for or because it’s not in the nation’s interests, or both. Others will accept that the reality of Brexit has turned out to be very different from the idea; it’s not a yes-no question any more, it’s a deck of political and economic priorities being shuffled and dealt round a crowded poker table. If ever there was a time to play the odds and cut our losses, they insist that this is it. Compromise can be a dirty word, especially where moral conviction is involved. To concede any ground in a deal is to risk being accused of weakness or lack of principle. Conversely, those who refuse to give ground can be seen as impractical or downright mulish. In our politics, our business deals and our personal relationships, how should we balance flexibility and integrity? Producer: Dan Tierney

  • This is a placeholder title for an episode

    Jul 20 2020 1h 30m
  • This is a placeholder title for an episode

    Jul 20 2020 1h 30m
  • This is a placeholder title for an episode

    Jul 20 2020 1h 30m

Other Links

0:00 0:00