To be absolutely clear for the record (though it advances the argument/agreement very little) about where I was going with the whole TB-cow thing: my point was really more that whilst situations like that undoubtedly do have ethical dimensions, that does *not* guarantee that the ethics of the situation will make it into the programming. (In fact there’s probably an argument to be made (which I’ve not subjected to any rigour) that anything newsworthy is intrinsically an ethical matter to some extent.) And the BBC’s long-evidenced belief that there are *exactly* two sides to any debate tends to emphasize the adversarial at the expense of the inquiring. Which doesn’t, by the way, mean that I think anyone else does it very much better; such programming on all channels is deeply contextualised; the programming is concerned with the substance of the debate (quite properly) and not with the structure of the debate or analysis of the meta-ethical positions underlying the various arguments advanced. No one wants 50% of the news to be about Hume or Moore; but I think there’s room for separate programming which is. The level of national debate on such topics might be enhanced by it (though I suspect those interested enough would be those who already had a level of understanding which would reduce the potential benefit); at worst it could do no harm and might even be interesting.

This of course has parallels with legalistic territory (the debate about whether the investigating magistrate or the sparring advcates are the best method for uncovering the truth), and I’m not advocating the Napoleonic code in all programming (nor even in law)… which is territory I’m scarcely qualified to opine on. So, for once, I sha’n't.

Nonetheless, I suspect that once again we are essentially in agreement and I therefore cannot support a policy of harranging you in to submission, which is a shame.

On the TB point, indeed you are right that the discussion may be a pragmatic/public health concern.

However, if we look at the issue of the TB-infected cow in Wales, where the Hindu community fought against its killing (on pubnlic health grounds), we can see that “public health” means “people’s health”.

The argument then becomes whether a contagious animal has less of a right to live than a human, which in turn is an ethical issue that can be debated across the religious and non-religious spectrum, regardless of which group is trying to save the animal’s life.

In the end, it becomes a cycle of debate. I suppose your follow-up article could be,
“Should religious ethical programming ONLY cover topics that concern religion?”

Now that really would get the sparks flying…

I shall leave the issue of whether or not “underabundance” is really a word up to you – all words start somewhere, mind!

Your point about the integration of non-religious ethical thought into other programming is an excellent one. And a programme entirely about the history of (say) ethical naturalism would probably be rather on the dry side. Which said, I’d still welcome programming which did have a specific and explicit focus on ethics: just because a programme approaches an issue which has ethical aspects doesn’t mean it’s about ethics per se (so whilst I take your point on QT, the discussion on TB in cows, for example, could have taken place purely on pragmatic or economic grounds, and so on).

You’re right that I should have been clearer about my description of the references: I do not intend that “no religion” and “atheism” be taken as the same thing, since I’m sure, as you point out, that there are plenty of non-religious deists and theists. However, I’m also sure there are plenty of non-religious atheists too, and as I say specific figures on that matter are not central to the argument (such as it was!).

I’m sure we could argue for hours about Auntie – suffice to say that I love the idea of the BBC but find the output often fails to live up to the idea. Sadly I’m out of beer, but I’ll gladly knock down another healthy glass of West London tap water!

You talk about the “underabundance (is that really a word?) of stuff that specifically focuses on the ethical”. Is there? Or is it that non-religious ethics is so wholly integrated in to other programming, that it ceases to need its own separate genre of programme?

For example – Question Time has a question from the audience on the rights and wrongs of the Iraq War. That is a question of ethics as well as politics, is it not?

Countryfile does a feature on whether to kill cows with TB – that is also a question of ethics, is it not?

Points of View will have a slot about whether to allow nudity before the watershed – is that not also a question of ethics?

etc.

Secondly, your reference points fall in to a classic secularist trap – that “no religion” means “atheism” – not aligning yourself to a specific church does not prevent you from having religion, or at least a belief in God.

However, your central point is well made, that ethics has no “complete” non-religious sub-genre or adequate profile in Auntie’s broadcasting schedules.

But then, neither does political impartiality, the arts or quality documentary making anymore.

So I’d suggest lying back, having another beer and pondering the ethics of that.