Subscribe to the Academy of Ideas Substack for more information on the next Battle and future events: https://clairefox.substack.com/subscribe

PUTTING THE PAST ON TRIAL: BURNING DEAD WITCHES?
http://archive.battleofideas.org.uk/2013/session_detail/7851

Denouncing racism in football, Prime Minister David Cameron recently declared, ‘we will not let recent events drag us back to the bad old days of the past,’ exemplifying a new trend to look back at the past from a position of moral superiority. Past decades are routinely disparaged today as a toxic legacy, particularly in the discussion about revelations of child abuse in the 1960s and 70s, but also in debates about ‘old-fashioned’ patriotism, traditional religion and ‘dead, white European males’ being taught in school curriculum, not to mention football hooliganism.

Far from celebrating the achievements of the past, the cultural script of the 21st century seems ever-hostile to the practices and values of yesteryear. When it comes to parenting, for example, the experience and insights of previous generations are castigated as dangerously old-fashioned prejudices, far too out-dated for our progressive, enlightened times. And in the debate about Baby-Boomers betraying today’s ‘jilted generation’, the older generations are admonished for the allegedly hedonistic, selfish and unsustainable lifestyles of their youth. Geoffrey Wheatcroft declares, ‘If there is any hope at all, it must be that our crappy generation can slink away in shame, and let a younger generation see if they can manage things better’.

Against this, Irish writer John Waters has warned against a dangerous condescension to the past and what he characterises as an ‘unlimited appetite for past obscenities’. Certainly we seem to have a morose fascination with excavating yesterday’s culture for secret scandals and hidden abuse. In the aftermath of the Savile scandal and amid Operation Yewtree, the police are openly encouraging people to examine their past for any possible abusive behaviour. For critics, this means inviting individuals to make sense of their current problems by seeing them as part of the damage inflicted by past wrongs. Should we accept the implication that their lives today were scripted by past childhood traumas? And are we being encouraged to reinterpret past experiences through the prism of present day preoccupations, obscuring our understanding of the past in its own terms? Why are we so keen to turn backwards and put the past on trial today, rather than concentrating on an optimistic embrace of the future? And was the past so bad anyway?

Speakers
Jennie Bristow
senior lecturer in sociology, Canterbury Christ Church University; author, The Sociology of Generations: New directions and challenges and Baby Boomers and Generational Conflict; co-author, Parenting Culture Studies

Allan Massie
author, nearly 30 books, including 20 historical novels, including A Question of Loyalties and Dark Summer in Bordeaux; columnist, Spectator

John Waters
Irish newspaper columnist; author, Jiving at the Crossroads and Was It For This? Why Ireland Lost the Plot

Professor Sir Simon Wessely
president of the Royal College of Psychiatrists; head of the Department of Psychological Medicine at the Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London

Chair:
Claire Fox
director, Academy of Ideas; panellist, BBC Radio 4's Moral Maze; author, I Find That Offensive

Battle of Ideas 2013

Putting the past on trial: burning dead witches?

Subscribe to the Academy of Ideas Substack for more information on the next Battle and future events: https://clairefox.substack.com/subscribe

IS INDIVIDUALISM BAD FOR SOCIETY?
http://archive.battleofideas.org.uk/2011/session_detail/5721

“…individualism is a disturbing and disintegrating force. There lies its immense value. For what it seeks is to disturb monotony of type, slavery of custom, tyranny of habit, and the reduction of man to the level of a machine” Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism

Everything from social fragmentation to the economic crisis, and the riots that broke out across English cities in the summer, has been blamed on a modern ‘cult of individualism’, epitomised by Margaret Thatcher’s insistence that ‘there is no such thing as society’. Labour leader Ed Miliband denounces ‘a “take what you can” culture’ that began in the 1980s, which he concedes New Labour did little to challenge. But Tory Prime Minister David Cameron also seeks to distance himself from his infamous predecessor, championing the ‘Big Society’. It has become routine to despair of individuals’ greed for consumer goods. More broadly, strong-willed individuals who know their own minds are accused of arrogance, egotism, even bullying. But isn’t there something to be said for individualism? After all, the individual has historically been asssociated with independence of mind, self-determination and self-reliance. Strong individuals have been admired for their courage and imagination, even valued for the unique contributions they can make to society rather than regarded as necessarily undermining social solidarity. So are we wrong to focus on the negatives, or is it time we recognised the damaging effects of individualism? Critics remind us that the individual smoker’s choice can imperil public health; one person’s free speech can cause offence and sow discord for countless others; motorists who insist on their individual freedom to drive petrol-guzzling SUVs clutter the roads and pollute the air.

Meanwhile, developments in neuroscience, evolutionary psychology and genetics cast doubt on the very idea of individual autonomy: some suggest free will is an illusion. Individuals are seen as hapless and hopeless if left to their own devices, too easily influenced by the malign advertisers or populist demagogues. Paternalist policy-makers and ‘choice architects’ regard the idea of moral autonomy as little more than an inconvenience, preferring to nudge individuals into making the right choices. But don’t diminished views of the individual also undermine the possibility of a strong society? If the ‘we’ in any collective comprises such feeble individuals, what is the content of society or solidarity?

Arguably, even seemingly self-sacrificing acts of public service - from volunteering to help others to laying down one’s life for a greater cause - require a strong sense of personal autonomy. By contrast, if we value conformity to social norms above individuality, is our ‘free will’ reduced to what JS Mill called ‘ape-like imitation’? And anyway, does self-interest necessarily preclude generosity, empathy and solidarity? Was selfish individualism really to blame for the summer’s riots?

Speakers
Dr Maurice Glasman
architect, ‘Blue Labour’; director, faith and citizenship programme, London Metropolitan University; Labour life peer (Baron Glasman); author, Unnecessary Suffering: managing market utopia

Clifford Longley
author, broadcaster and journalist; leader writer and columnist, Tablet; pannellist; BBC Radio 4's Moral Maze

John Sutherland
Emeritus Lord Northcliffe Professor of English Literature, University College London; author, The Lives of the Novelists

Bruno Waterfield
Brussels correspondent, The Times; co-author, No Means No

Chair
Claire Fox
director, Academy of Ideas; panellist, BBC Radio 4's Moral Maze; author, I Find That Offensive

Battle of Ideas 2011

Is individualism bad for society?

Subscribe to the Academy of Ideas Substack for more information on the next Battle and future events: https://clairefox.substack.com/subscribe

FRACKING AND FUKUSHIMA: OUR ENERGY SECURITY FEARS
http://archive.battleofideas.org.uk/2011/session_detail/5719

To a casual observer, two of the biggest news stories of early 2011 – the Arab Spring and the partial meltdown of Japan’s Fukushima nuclear plant after an earthquake and tsunami – could hardly have seemed more different. But for many in the West, the two events had one important factor in common: both had global consequences for the problem of energy. Political unrest in the Middle East and North Africa sent panic through the energy markets as oil supplies were once again threatened, while the spectre of nuclear meltdown at Fukushima offered a grim reminder of the risks posed by moving beyond ‘dirty’ fossil fuels. Indeed, barely a year goes by without an energy problem dominating the headlines: be it the BP oil spill of 2010 or recurring disputes between Russia and Ukraine over gas supplies. Even before one factors in the challenge posed to the EU27 countries by their commitment to reduce carbon emissions by 20% on 1990 levels by 2020, energy security is near the top of the agenda of every leading nation.

With renewable energy still a long way from being able to meet the shortfall, many gloomily predict a future of brown-outs, tough energy efficiency measures, regular deep-sea drilling disasters and even bitter resource wars. Yet not everyone is so pessimistic. The discovery of huge reserves of shale gas around North America and Europe has been dubbed a ‘game-changer’ in terms of security and reducing environmental impact, although some doubt the safety of the apparently miraculous ‘fracking’ process. Despite the apocalyptic nightmares, however, even some leading sceptical campaigners conceded that the avoidance of catastrophe at Fukushima demonstrated the potential safety of nuclear energy over other available forms. Others advocate ambitious global energy grids of the sort under construction in the North Sea and west coast US, but even this might end up creating more security headaches than it solves.

Will the struggle for energy security result in a new ‘Great Game’, as some predict, with increasingly energy-thirsty developing countries joining the fight for dwindling resources? With the UK’s notoriously ambivalent approach to providing abundant energy, will ‘less is more’ become a patriotic duty as well as an eco-mantra? What role can innovation and alternative energy sources play in keeping the lights on?

Speakers
Professor Gordon MacKerron
director of Science and Technology Policy Research, School of Business, Management and Economics, University of Sussex

Tanya Morrison
government relations manager, climate changes, Shell

James Woudhuysen
visiting professor, London South Bank University

Chair
Tony Gilland
associate fellow, Academy of Ideas

Fracking and Fukushima: our energy security fears

Subscribe to the Academy of Ideas Substack for more information on the next Battle and future events: https://clairefox.substack.com/subscribe

HAS TOLERANCE GONE TOO FAR?
http://archive.battleofideas.org.uk/2011/session_detail/5601

Tolerance is a virtue, except when it isn’t. Critics of ‘the permissive society’ have long warned against the idea that anything goes, and even championed ‘zero tolerance’ policing. But many self-styled liberals are just as intolerant when it comes to ‘hate speech’ – for example the homophobic rants of the Westboro Baptist Church in the US, or misogynist rap lyrics – or the burqa, regarded as a symbol of women’s oppression. And the one thing many won’t tolerate is the intolerance of others. But do we confuse tolerance with respect and approval? Can we uphold the idea of tolerance while maintaining the right to criticise and judge rather than succumbing to moral relativism?

The tradition of tolerance – through John Locke, Voltaire, Kant and JS Mill – emphasised the importance of moral independence, not relativism. Locke tolerated what you thought because no one could ever establish tyranny in your heart. Mill also tolerated what you did – so long as it did not harm others. And crucially he valued the existence in society of views and opinions he found objectionable – their existence vital to the pursuit of truths which we should not assume we know. Tolerance, in this sense, was a response to a world made uncertain by the erosion of moral absolutes and conventional prejudices. As Voltaire wrote in his Essay on Tolerance: ‘Think for yourselves, and let others enjoy the privilege of doing so too’. Today, by contrast, the big issue is where the limits of tolerance should be. Defining the concept of harm to include subjective harm is one way of tightening those limits: society should not tolerate the emotional distress caused by offensive speech. Some even argue we should not tolerate acts which harm only ourselves: banning smoking; curbing binge drinking; warning against ‘junk’ foods. And, in the name of protecting tolerant societies from their enemies, the war on terror has justified intolerant measures – laws against incitement to terrorism or religious hatred – in many countries. Is this is a pragmatic limitation, without which tolerance would be just a naive ideal, or is it simply political censorship? What does tolerance mean today?

If we allow tolerance to mean being non-judgemental, do we risk becoming indulgent, indifferent even? Does the concept of ‘zero tolerance’ – often deployed in defence of those at risk of harm – mask an unwillingness to debate and argue? Should we approach the question of tolerance from the standpoint of my freedom to act, or your need for security? Can we afford to be tolerant of those who are themselves intolerant?  Can we afford to tolerate other people making mistakes along the way to getting it right? Is tolerating the vulgar, the offensive, the shocking, not, in part, the price of liberty? Or are such concepts vain and dangerous in today’s very uncertain world?

Speakers
Christopher Caldwell
senior editor, Weekly Standard; columnist, Financial Times; author, Reflections on the Revolution in Europe: immigration, Islam and the West

Professor Frank Furedi
sociologist and social commentator; author, What's Happened to the University?, Power of Reading: from Socrates to Twitter, On Tolerance and Authority: a sociological history

Professor Anna Elisabetta Galeotti
chair of political philosophy, University of Piemonte Orienatale in Vercelli; author, Toleration as Recognition

GM Tamás
visiting professor, Central European University; author, Les Idoles de la Tribu

Chair
Angus Kennedy
convenor, The Academy; author, Being Cultured: in defence of discrimination

Has tolerance gone too far?

Subscribe to the Academy of Ideas Substack for more information on the next Battle and future events: https://clairefox.substack.com/subscribe

MORAL PANICS OR JUST PANIC?
http://archive.battleofideas.org.uk/2011/session_detail/5802

Earlier this year, the media itself became the focus of a media-fuelled ‘moral panic’.  The vocal political and media crusade against the News of the World quickly turned from an understandable disgust at the hacking of murdered teenager Milly Dowler’s phone into a seemingly out-of-control firestorm.  What started with revelations about less-than-savoury tabloid excesses soon threatened to engulf the whole of journalism and became the focus of animated activity for everyone from left-wing anti-corporate activists to usually moribund parliamentary sub-committees. Scalps are still being gleefully taken in a feeding-frenzy that has resulted in the closure of one of Britain’s oldest newspapers and the demise of top executives.

For all the fury, it seems unlikely that what drove the Twitterstorm, parliamentary hyper-activity and general hysteria about Hackgate was simply the sudden discovery of ‘evil tabloid hacks’.  After all, British public life has lurched from one such high-profile scandal to another in recent years, focusing on promiscuous celebrities, expenses-claiming MPs, greedy bankers and now scurrilous tabloid hacks working for Murdoch’s evil empire. Taking a sceptical view, the cultural script always seems to read: shocking revelation, followed by shrill denunciations of wrong-doers by an array of scandal-mongers; then fleeting but intense bursts of moral outrage, the search for ever more shocking revelations and new wrong-doers and demands that ‘something must be done’.  One scandal emerges as quickly as the old one subsides. So is there something more fundamental driving this process?

These episodes in some ways seem similar to traditional ‘moral panics’, whether over crime, youth, drugs or sexual freedom, each considered a threat to the moral fibre of society at that particular time. Critics noted how these panics focused irrationally on ‘folk devils’, from teenagers to immigrants, expressing a deeper anxiety about challenges to traditional norms and values. Today’s panics, however, appear to have a different character. Contemporary ‘folk devils’ could literally be anybody, from any social group. The unpredictable, free-floating dynamic can attach itself to a wide variety of events or personas. In some ways today’s ‘panics’ seem to act as a substitute for morality itself, an outlet for the expression of moral fury. The discovery of scandal allows for the exercising of something that is increasingly rare – moral certainty itself, or at least the playing out of a fantasy about Good taking a stand against Bad. All sections of society seem to be animated by the latest scandal, with each exposure of terrible wrongdoing seeming to rally new layers of hand-wringing activitists and certainly expressing an urgent and real feeling of anger about something, anything. But does anything good come of all this? And if such bouts of fury reveal a deeper moral malaise, what can be done to address it?

Speakers
David Aaronovitch
columnist, The Times; author, Voodoo Histories; chair, Index on Censorship

Brendan O'Neill
editor, spiked; columnist, Big Issue; contributor, Spectator; author, A Duty to Offend: Selected Essays

Jenni Russell
columnist and broadcaster; writer, Evening Standard, Sunday Times and Guardian; 2011 winner of Orwell Prize for Political Journalism

Chair
Claire Fox
director, Academy of Ideas; panellist, BBC Radio 4's Moral Maze; author, I Find That Offensive

Moral panics or just panic?

Subscribe to the Academy of Ideas Substack for more information on the next Battle and future events: https://clairefox.substack.com/subscribe

CREATIVITY AND CURIOSITY: DO WE MAKE STUFF UP OR FIND IT OUT?
http://archive.battleofideas.org.uk/2011/session_detail/5683

For many music lovers, it is the seeming inevitability of a musical sequence that makes it beautiful, as if it has always existed, waiting to be discovered by its ‘composer’. Typically, we value serious literature for the truths it tells about the human condition, rather than for mere flights of fancy. The proverbial Indian woodcarver, asked how he approached his work, answered that he simply cut away the wood that didn’t look like an elephant. Perhaps, as Oscar Wilde said, art really is ‘the science of beauty’, revealing the world to us rather than adding something new. Or is all this an illusion? Is it an aesthetic judgement rather than a scientific one that leads us to describe a work of art as ‘truthful’?

Historically, great artists were often employed by the Church to glorify God, and their work was seen as a mere reflection of His Creation. Early scientists like Isaac Newton also saw themselves as revealing the glory of Creation. For modern thinkers in the wake of the Enlightenment, however, man made God in his own image, not the other way round. The led to a more heroic conception of both artists and scientists. Looking back, the great medieval cathedrals could be seen as monuments to man’s own ingenuity. Artists came to be seen as ‘creative’ in their own right, while scientists seemed to be unravelling religious beliefs with their discoveries about the natural world. But the resulting scepticism also opened the door to new forms of fatalism, a process still unfolding today. As neuroscience advances, some think we will discover we are not much more than human ants, determined by natural laws. As for the mysteries of art, there are countless examples of scientific or mathematical explanations of the Mona Lisa’s beauty or the perfection of a symphony. At the same time, though, some doubt the objectivity even of mathematics. Some doubt that complex numbers really ‘exist’, for example, and suggest mathematicians are inventing theories rather than discovering eternal verities. Meanwhile, the romantic celebration of artists as special individuals has given way in many quarters to doubt about the value of ‘postmodern’ art that seems neither true nor beautiful.

Modern humanity exists in a vast cold universe, but (most of the time) we don’t feel crushed by its weight. Are we fooling ourselves with stories we tell each other, papering over the existential cracks? Should we be much more honest about our significance, given what scientific measurement might reveal to us? How far can art and creativity go in informing our understanding of the world? Does art just reflect reality? Is reality shaped by art? Do we find what we are looking for? Even create what we want to find? Are we human because we make ourselves so, or just animals putting on airs?

Speakers
Dr Ken Arnold
head of public programmes, Wellcome Trust; author, Cabinets for the Curious

Dr Tiffany Jenkins
writer and broadcaster; author, Keeping Their Marbles: how treasures of the past ended up in museums and why they should stay there

Professor Colin Lawson
director, Royal College of Music; period clarinettist; author, Mozart: Clarinet Concerto and Brahms: Clarinet Quintet

Ruth Padel
poet and writer; author, The Mara Crossing and Darwin: a life in poems

Professor Raymond Tallis
fellow, Academy of Medical Sciences; author, philosopher, critic and poet; recent books include NHS SOS and Aping Mankind; chair, Healthcare Professionals for Assisted Dying

Chair
Dolan Cummings
associate fellow, Academy of Ideas; author, That Existential Leap: a crime story (forthcoming from Zero Books)

Creativity and curiosity: do we make stuff up or find it out?

Subscribe to the Academy of Ideas Substack for more information on the next Battle and future events: https://clairefox.substack.com/subscribe

PROFITING RESPONSIBLY? BUSINESS IN THE BIG SOCIETY
http://archive.battleofideas.org.uk/2011/session_detail/5682

Not long ago, ‘corporate social responsibility’ (CSR) was all the rage. Leading consultants Giles Gibbons and Steve Hilton (now advisor to David Cameron) argued business could change the world, and it would be good for business too. Such rhetoric is increasingly seen as a cynical ruse, however, often dismissed as ‘green wash’, or a cynical means of avoiding unwanted regulation. But if the CSR brand is slightly tarnished, perhaps the Big Society offers a new lease of life to the idea of business as a force for good. David Cameron wants private enterprise to pick up the burden from the state and play a greater role in delivering public services. And while funding CSR programmes is no longer a no-brainer, at the 10th Annual Responsible Business Summit held in London at the start of May, top CEOs declared themselves eager to earn a ‘licence to operate’ by demonstrating their businesses’ social worth. This may be understandable, with the 2010 Edelman Trust Barometer showing trust in British CEOs dropping from 51% to 35%. The public seems increasingly cynical about fat cats and powerful corporations. But how should business contribute to society? Milton Friedman famously argued a corporation’s purpose is solely to maximise returns for its shareholders. Traditional free market advocates explain that businesses make profits by producing useful goods and services, creating jobs in the process. What more do you want?

Today, however, shareholders’ interests are often pitted against those of broader stakeholders. The new buzz-phrases are ‘social accounting’ and ‘the triple bottom line’, with demands that the social and environmental effects of a company’s economic actions are made transparent to consumers, investors such as pension funds, and communities in the areas where the corporation operates, as well as regulators and the media. A cursory glance at the course content of MBA courses - bulging with as many modules on environmental, ethical and social issues as traditional topics like accounting and management - shows young entrepreneurs and tomorrow’s senior managers are routinely taught to ‘think and act beyond the bottom line’. But is the bottom line and profit really at odds with society as implied? Is it naïve to insist corporations’ contribution stands on its own merits? After all, long-term improvements in health, living standards, the arts and higher education depend on wealth creation.

Does business leaders’ eagerness to demonstrate their social worth in new ways reflect a loss of confidence in that core contribution? Perhaps it is easier to turn a profit by manipulating the public perception of brands, and benefitting from government largesse in the form of spurious public-private partnerships, than by investing in innovation and creating jobs in new sectors of the economy. If so, are critics letting corporations off the hook? Do CSR demands help restore trust in business, or create a world of smoke and mirrors?

Speakers
Sue Clark
corporate affairs director, SABMiller

Professor Bill Durodié
head of department and chair of international relations, University of Bath

Giles Gibbons
founder and CEO, Good Business; founder, Sustainable Restaurant Association; co-author, Good Business: your world needs you

Leo Johnson
partner, PwC Sustainability & Climate Change; host, BBC World's Down to Business

Philippe Legrain
visiting senior fellow, LSE’s European Institute; author, Immigrants: your country needs them and European Spring: Why Our Economies and Politics are in a Mess – and How to Put Them Right

Chair
Claire Fox
director, Academy of Ideas; panellist, BBC Radio 4's Moral Maze; author, I Find That Offensive

Profiting responsibly? Business in the big society

Subscribe to the Academy of Ideas Substack for more information on the next Battle and future events: https://clairefox.substack.com/subscribe

WHAT IS NATURE FOR?
http://archive.battleofideas.org.uk/2011/session_detail/5681

Even in our culturally advanced and technologically sophisticated modern world, it seems we are fascinated by the natural world. Recent government plans to sell off woodlands were met with a storm of outrage; David Attenborough’s Planet Earth and Blue Planet documentaries have been international success stories, and Cornwall’s Eden Project has long outlived the Millennium Dome as a tourist attraction. But what do we mean by ‘nature’? Many of the ‘natural’ habitats we revere are actually the products of human activity, from agriculture and horticulture to the very act of selective conservation itself. Moreover, for much of human history, untamed natural forces were to be feared rather than admired. Even the 21st century citizen is not entirely insulated from such forces: whether it is the devastation wreaked by natural disasters such as the Asian Tsunami, Hurricane Katrina or the Haiti earthquake, or the unintended consequences of our own activity, from landslides caused by deforestation to anthropogenic climate change, we are regularly reminded how precarious civilisation can be in the face of Mother Nature.

The contemporary reaction to such rare disasters – ‘Nature’s Revenge’ ran one headline after the Fukushima earthquake – seems to suggest we are a long way from the Enlightenment view of man gaining freedom by controlling nature. As Rousseau put it, ‘Nature commands every animal, and beasts obey. Man feels the same impetus, but he knows he is free to go along or to resist; and it is above all in the awareness of this freedom that the spirituality of his soul is made manifest.’ Today, mankind seems more concerned with protecting nature than mastering it: witness the ferocity with which the Heathrow airport expansion was opposed. While many talk up the possibilities of alternative energy sources drawn from wind, solar and biofuels, the prospect of using ambitious bio-engineering to ‘improve’ nature makes others uncomfortable. Environmentalists insist we should see ourselves as an integral part of nature, rather than somehow outside it.

Is human history the story of man’s gradual but relentless domination of nature? Or is it possible for even the most ardent modernist to argue for keeping some spaces ‘natural’? Is nature an obstacle for mankind to overcome, or should we learn to work within its limits? What do we look to nature for, and why does it still have such a hold on the imagination of those who have benefitted from industrialised living?

Speakers
Josie Appleton
director, civil liberties group, Manifesto Club; author, Officious: Rise of the Busybody State

Dr Jim Endersby
senior lecturer, University of Sussex; author, A Guinea Pig's History of Biology

Matthew Oates
specialist on nature & wildlife engagement, National Trust

Ruth Padel
poet and writer; author, The Mara Crossing and Darwin: a life in poems

Chair
Patrick Hayes
director, British Educational Suppliers Association (BESA)

What is nature for?

Subscribe to the Academy of Ideas Substack for more information on the next Battle and future events: https://clairefox.substack.com/subscribe

THE BATTLE AGAINST THE FATES
http://archive.battleofideas.org.uk/2011/session_detail/5680

Men at some time are masters of their fates:
The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars,
But in ourselves, that we are underlings.
(Julius Caesar, 1.2.146), Cassius to Brutus

Education Minister Michael Gove says the government wants to help all Britain’s children shape their own destinies and become ‘masters of their own fate’. But is this a realistic aspiration, or even a meaningful one? Certainly the human struggle for self-mastery has a fine pedigree, going back to the ancients. But has the modern age brought us closer to this goal, or simply revealed the futility of trying to tame the fates? After all, one scientific discovery follows the next suggesting our behaviour is genetically driven. Some scientists claim everything from sexual preference to criminality, altruism to greed, is hardwired. Brain research and evolutionary psychology are mobilised to argue that even religious beliefs and morality are expressions of genetic and neurological dispositions. When US President Franklin Roosevelt said in 1939, ‘Men are not prisoners of Fate, but only prisoners of their own minds’, he was of course unaware of the gains of modern neuroscience. Bestselling authors like Sam Harris in The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values and David Brooks in The Social Animal tell us a ‘cognitive revolution’ has occurred in recent years, ‘producing amazing insights about who we are’. Behavioural economics suggests we are essentially irrational, simply acting out our unconscious urges. Social determinism is also influential: it is taken for granted in the current discussion on social mobility that where you are born, both geographically and in class terms, is likely to dictate your future. Meanwhile, we feel increasingly powerless to deal with external forces, from international terrorism to swine flu, climate change to volcanic ash clouds.

The fatalistic zeitgeist means we tend increasingly to downplay the significance of our own actions and focus instead on external forces beyond our control. Frequently this leads to a conspiratorial mindset, and fears of being manipulated by anything from subliminal advertising to unknown powers that have no name. In such circumstances, our ability to change our destiny seems futile; we have little option but to defer to fate. What explains today’s intellectual temper of fatalism? If we believe individuals cannot control their own behaviour, let alone their future, where does that leave the exercise of free will? If our capacity to influence events is so limited, can there be any meaningful sense of responsibility? How can we be held to account if ‘my genes made me do it m’lud’? Or is it cowardly to avoid understanding that man-made science is now freeing us from the metaphysical ignorance that suggested we could determine who we are? Can the capacity for moral independence be rescued or is it a futile rage against the inevitable? Where does fate end and free will begin?

Speakers
Professor Frank Furedi
sociologist and social commentator; author, What's Happened to the University?, Power of Reading: from Socrates to Twitter, On Tolerance and Authority: a sociological history

Peter Hunter OP
principal tutor, philosophy, Blackfriars Hall; Dominican Friar

Steve Rayner
James Martin Professor of Science and Civilization; director, Institute for Science, Innovation and Society, University of Oxford

Jeffrey Rosen
professor of law, George Washington University; author, The Supreme Court: the personalities and rivalries that defined America

Chair
Claire Fox
director, Academy of Ideas; panellist, BBC Radio 4's Moral Maze; author, I Find That Offensive

The Battle against the Fates

Subscribe to the Academy of Ideas Substack for more information on the next Battle and future events: https://clairefox.substack.com/subscribe

WELCOME ADDRESS 2011
https://academyofideas.org.uk/2011/10/29/battle-of-ideas-festival-2011-welcome-address/

The seventh annual Battle of Ideas festival opened with a Welcome Address hosted by Claire Fox, Director of the Academy of Ideas.

Speakers
Ann Furedi
chief executive, British Pregnancy Advisory Service; author, The Moral Case for Abortion

Dr Paul Thompson
rector and vice-provost, Royal College of Art

Jamie Walls
vice president, UK communications, Shell

Mike Wright
executive director, Jaguar Land Rover

Chair
Claire Fox
director, Academy of Ideas; panellist, BBC Radio 4’s Moral Maze; author, I Find That Offensive

Welcome Address 2011

Listen to recordings of our discussions and debates. Our aim is to expand the boundaries of public debate, to break out of today's echo chambers and challenge orthodoxies.

Creativity and curiosity: do we make stuff up or find it out?

Academy of Ideas

Related tracks