Module 2, Part A: Ubuntu

Module 1 highlighted the CST principles of human dignity and the common good.
○ Human dignity → The individual
○ The Common Good → The community.
○ Putting both principles together → All human life is sacred and social.

Module 2 focuses on this interplay between the single person and their surrounding
group/s of persons through the African lens of ubuntu.

Defining Ubuntu:
○ The term ubuntu became popular in the saying, ‘Umuntu ngumuntu ngabantu’:
“a person is a person only in relation to other persons.”

○ Principle of humanity

○ Being human is being interdependent with other humans.

○ Ubuntu is what makes a good society or a healthy community.

○ Ubuntu movements are humanist movements whose aims are to establish

political systems based on the value of all humans.

○ Ubuntu is a concept or principle with multiple complex meanings in multiple

interdisciplinary perspectives (e.g. linguistics, literature, law, theology, philosophy).

Ubuntu vs. Solidarity:

Similarity: Both Ubuntu and Solidarity emphasise the importance of community,
cooperation, and mutual support
Difference: Ubuntu has cultural and historical ties to specific African communities,
whereas solidarity is a more universal concept

Ubuntu according to Tutu

○ “The essence of being human”

○ As a result of Desmond Tutu's efforts toward South Africa's truth and

reconciliation process, the word/ idea of ‘Ubuntu’ has become globally renowned
 MODULE 2: REQUIRED READING

“Ubuntu and Development: An African Conception of Development”

(Motsamai Molefe, 2019)

UBUNTU = Personhood, flourishing, and the good life

Ubuntu as a Moral Theory:

○ Ubuntu is framed as a dominant moral theory in African ethics (p. 99)

○ There are competing conceptions of ubuntu as a moral theory. (p.99)

○ Two ‘salient’ interpretations of ubuntu:

1. ‘Relationship’ approach: (p.99)
￫ Right action and moral living are fundamentally interpersonal, and the
highest goods are healthy, communal networks

￫ The highest good is based on relationships that have healthy and

communal networks.

￫ Right actions and virtuous living are inherently interpersonal. According to

this account of ubuntu, morality is entirely dependent on positive
interactions with others.

2. ‘Self-realisation’ approach: (p.100)

￫ Emphasises individual development through relationships

￫ “a person is a person through other persons”

￫ Acknowledges that each individual has intrinsic worth and has the potential
to reach their fullest potential.

￫ By embracing one's unique talents, abilities, and personal growth,

individuals contribute to both their own well-being and the collective good
of society.

○ Molefe believes the "self-realisation" approach is a more “promising understanding

of ubuntu” (p.100)
 ○ Personhood = achieving moral perfection

○ The conversion of moral potential into moral reality is what constructs moral
perfection or fulfilment and is achieved through “relational moral virtues, like being
generous, loving, caring, and so on” (p. 101).

○ Ubuntu refers to the “quality of the character of an individual” (p. 102)

○ Ubuntu “is best exemplified in terms of other-regarding duties, or even virtues of

compassion, generosity, kindness, friendliness,” meaning the essential moral aspect
of “human nature is our social nature, our ability to connect to others” (p. 102).

○ An individual cannot achieve morality alone

○ In order to accomplish moral virtue, the individual “needs to be embedded in a

community that prescribes moral standards” as well as actively implement
“morality in constant contact with others.” (p. 103)

Ubuntu and Development Ethics:

○ Molefe examines Ubuntu's perspective on the concepts of the ‘good life’ and ‘a just
society’ in the context of development ethics (p. 103).

○ Ubuntu's accounts of the objectives – flourishing and justice – are interconnected

as a just society enables individuals to pursue the good life: “A society is just if it
allows all individuals to be able to pursue the good life (ubuntu), or if it makes that
pursuit possible in terms of social arrangements” (p. 104).

○ “The pursuit of a good life is each individual’s responsibility” however, it requires a

well-organised societal structure, raising the crucial question: “What are the basic
conditions and/or features of a just society that will render the moral (the pursuit
of ubuntu/personhood) possible for all?” (p.104)

○ A just society is one designed to create unambiguous conditions to facilitate the

achievement of personhood and require specification in regards the essential
values necessary for the pursuit of moral perfection (ubuntu). (p. 104)

○ ‘Equality’ and ‘the common good’ are crucial conditions for a just society within
ubuntu's framework
The Condition of Equality:

○ ‘Equality’ argues that all humans have equal value or “moral status” because of
“the human capacity to develop a virtuous character” (p. 105).

○ “According to ubuntu, a just society is one that recognises the humanity — the
distinctive feature that accounts for equality — of others for what it is.” (p.105)

The Common Good Condition:

○ Concerned with the accessibility of social and political resources necassary for
individuals to actualise morality (p. 106)

○ Once the essence of humanity in relation to equality is recognised, it is crucial to

provide the social, political, and economic resources required for moral individuals
to actively pursue ubuntu (personhood). (p. 106).
 Module 2, Part B: Ubuntu

Critiques of Ubuntu

○ .

○ .

○ .

As with any word or idea, it is important to consider ubuntu critically. Critical thinking isn't
about negativity and opposition. It's about thinking through potential ambiguities and
pitfalls. Who uses Ubuntu, and why? Is Ubuntu helpful in all circumstances, or only some?
Are particular perspectives on Ubuntu more useful than others? How much do the African
backgrounds of Ubuntu matter in Western applications? Consider the following questions
and points now:
● Is ubuntu an empty idea that anyone can use however they like? Is ubuntu a dated
tool of political rhetoric geared to work for insiders but against outsiders?
● Tagwirei (2020) sees 3 problems with current uses of ubuntu: (1) ubuntu discourse
could draw on more traditional African knowledge than merely the aphorism,
Umuntu ngumuntu ngabantu, “a person is a person through others”; (2) this
proverb is ambiguous on the definitions of both harmony and personhood; (3) it
elevates others as superior to the individual.
● In the 1990s ubuntu “became a rallying cry for a new politics ... that would replace
the toxic and immoral grammar of Apartheid without necessarily dismantling the
principles and operations of Apartheid” (Tagwirei 2020, p. 393).
● “[T]he policies of reconciliation in Zimbabwe and South Africa, emphasising
forgiveness and harmony at the expense of reparation and economic equality,
found their philosophical and ethical grounding in a narrowly defined, nucleated,
ubuntu. Former victims and perpetrators were invited, through this discourse, to
continue living side by side despite the maintenance of blatant disparities”
(Tagwirei 2020, p. 394).
 ● Matolino and Kwindingwi (2013) present 2 arguments about ubuntu: (1) the
promotion of ubuntu in post-Apartheid South Africa “is an elitist project so
conceived by the new black elite”; (2) a parochial emphasis on ubuntu is leading to
an Afrocentric outlook to the expense of democracy and tolerance.
So, what do you think of these analyses? Are they compatible with one another? Do they
have important differences? What remains confusing for you, and where can you go to
clarify things?

Ubuntu in Australia

From the Uluru Statement from the Heart: “... Proportionally, we are the most incarcerated
people on the planet. We are not innately criminal people. Our children are aliened from
their families at unprecedented rates. This cannot be because we have no love for them.
And our youth languish in detention in obscene numbers. They should be our hope for the
future... We call for the establishment of a First Nations Voice enshrined in the
Constitution. Makarrata is the culmination of our agenda: the coming together after a
struggle. It captures our aspirations for a fair and truthful relationship with the people of
Australia and a better future for our children based on justice and self-determination...”
 References

Molefe, M. (2019). Ubuntu and development: An African conception of development. Africa

Today, 66(1), 97–115. [Link]

Bernard Matolino and Wenceslaus Kwindingwi, “The end of ubuntu,” South African journal of

philosophy 32 (2013) 197–205

Cuthbeth Tagwirei, “The nucleation of ubuntu discourse,” African identities 18 (2020) 392–406