• Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
  • Core Principles of Responsible AI
    • Accountability
    • Fairness
    • Privacy
    • Safety and Security
    • Sustainability
    • Transparency
  • Special Topics
    • AI in Industry
    • Ethical Implications
    • Human-Centered Design
    • Regulatory Landscape
    • Technical Methods
  • Living Dictionary
  • State of AI Ethics
  • AI Ethics Brief
  • 🇫🇷
Montreal AI Ethics Institute

Montreal AI Ethics Institute

Democratizing AI ethics literacy

Ubuntu’s Implications for Philosophical Ethics

November 16, 2021

🔬 Research summary by Connor Wright, our Partnerships Manager.

[Original talk by Thaddeus Metz]


Overview: Philosophers have been puzzled over searching for an underlying principle expounded by a moral theory for over 400 years. Through his talk, Thaddeus Metz demonstrates how Ubuntu is also worth considering in the journey to solving this puzzle.


Introduction

Thaddeus Metz aims to demonstrate how Ubuntu looks when construed as a moral theory. The goal is not to show Ubuntu being ‘better’ when compared to other moral theories but rather as a perspective worthy of consideration. With the slogan of “a person is a person through other persons”, we shall explore what Ubuntu construed as such entails and how this is applied to different situations. The Utilitarian and Kantian views are explored as comparisons, with the path that Ubuntu utilises to arrive at similar conclusions proving particularly interesting.

Key Insights

Ubuntu is first represented as a moral theory. To be the case, it must offer the following:

  1. A comprehensive account of right and wrong.
  2. A specification of what all immoral actions have in common.
  3. A reduction of various duties down to just one.

Interpreting Ubuntu as such has the following benefits:

  1. Having a fundamental principle in philosophy would be super interesting.
  2. Having an underlying ethical principle can also be used to solve controversial issues (like abortion and the death penalty).

Hence, the question becomes how we might draw on indigenous African thought to construct a moral theory?

Figures such as Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Professor Gessler Muxe Nkondo and Justice Yvonne Mokgoro have commented on Ubuntu. Here, they mention Ubuntu’s emphasis on being generous, hospitable, holding a commitment to the community and towards sympathetic social relations as basic tenets of the moral theory. As a result, Metz suggests the following two guidelines:

  1. A real person becomes so through respecting others’ capacity to relate harmoniously.
  2. An act is wrong if and only if it fails to honour those that commune or be communed with.

However, what is a communal relationship, and how do you relate communally? A communal (harmonious) relationship includes two different strands: Identity and Solidarity. Identity is a sense of togetherness and coordination. Solidarity (caring for someone else’s quality of life) includes sympathetic altruism.

Three corollaries of Ubuntu as a moral principle follow to pursue the harmonious relationship:

  1. You must avoid treating people in the opposite way to harmony; there is no us vs them.
  2. You must go out of your way to relate communally (exhibit identity and solidarity) and emphasise another person’s dignity by allowing them to identify communally.
  3. Prioritise maintaining ties with people you already have a relation with, rather than strangers.

Following these steps leads to a communal relation. To fully manifest this, we can expect to see actions like those listed below:

  1. Appealing to consensus – everyone sits together until a solution is reached – necessary condition for a just way of going forward. COnsensus = no split between majority and minority.
  2. Collective labour – everyone gathers to help one another harvest from plot to plot. Mutual aid for one another’s sake.
  3. Reconciliation – rather than punishment that seeks to confine, punishment that aims to reconcile differences is pursued, like with the South Africa Truth and Reconciliation Commission.
  4. Moral value attributed to tradition, ritual and custom.

To show Ubuntu as a moral theory in action, Metz draws on examples from two different forms of considerations. Here, a basic intuition is explored through the Utilitarian, Kantian and Ubuntu views, allowing us to see how each differs. In this sense, Ubuntu entails the same kind of intuition as other Western theories, but for different reasons. To demonstrate, I have selected the most personally interesting examples from each section and listed how Ubuntu differs from the other two views explored.

The first comparison: whether to fight poverty:

  • The intuition: it is unjust for the extremely wealthy not to help out those who are poor due to circumstances out of their control.
  • Ubuntu: poverty is unjust because the poor now have nothing to give to others, rather than the harm it does to the individual (Utilitarianism) or because the poor are less free to choose (Kantianism).

The second sort of comparison: whom to rescue from death:

  • The Intuition: when having to choose between a young adult stranger and your mother, you should save your mother instead of a stranger.
  • Ubuntu: the long-standing communal tie with your Mum means you should save her, rather than the stranger. A utilitarian would advocate for saving the stranger as they probably take up less resources and the Kantian would advocate for randomizing on who to save, seeing as their dignity is equal.

Between the lines

While it certainly proves controversial at times to say that one moral theory is ‘outrightly’ better than another, it is certainly less so to say one is worthy of consideration. I think Metz does exceptionally well not to force Ubuntu down our throats but to succinctly demonstrate why it ought to be considered. At times, I find that discussions in the West are susceptible to being stuck in the conventional ways of thinking about problems, a well-worn path, if you will. Ubuntu, in this sense, provides a welcomed new perspective on the issues at hand. An Ubuntu perspective is not only worth considering, but it’s also beneficial.

Want quick summaries of the latest research & reporting in AI ethics delivered to your inbox? Subscribe to the AI Ethics Brief. We publish bi-weekly.

Primary Sidebar

🔍 SEARCH

Spotlight

Canada’s Minister of AI and Digital Innovation is a Historic First. Here’s What We Recommend.

Am I Literate? Redefining Literacy in the Age of Artificial Intelligence

AI Policy Corner: The Texas Responsible AI Governance Act

AI Policy Corner: Singapore’s National AI Strategy 2.0

AI Governance in a Competitive World: Balancing Innovation, Regulation and Ethics | Point Zero Forum 2025

related posts

  • Transferring Fairness under Distribution Shifts via Fair Consistency Regularization

    Transferring Fairness under Distribution Shifts via Fair Consistency Regularization

  • Nonhuman humanitarianism: when 'AI for good' can be harmful

    Nonhuman humanitarianism: when 'AI for good' can be harmful

  • The Robot Made Me Do It: Human–Robot Interaction and Risk-Taking Behavior (Research Summary)

    The Robot Made Me Do It: Human–Robot Interaction and Risk-Taking Behavior (Research Summary)

  • On Prediction-Modelers and Decision-Makers: Why Fairness Requires More Than a Fair Prediction Model

    On Prediction-Modelers and Decision-Makers: Why Fairness Requires More Than a Fair Prediction Model

  • Conversational Swarm Intelligence (CSI) Enhances Groupwise Deliberation

    Conversational Swarm Intelligence (CSI) Enhances Groupwise Deliberation

  • Exploring Collaboration Mechanisms for LLM Agents: A Social Psychology View

    Exploring Collaboration Mechanisms for LLM Agents: A Social Psychology View

  • On the sui generis value capture of new digital technologies: The case of AI

    On the sui generis value capture of new digital technologies: The case of AI

  • Technological trajectories as an outcome of the structure-agency interplay at the national level: In...

    Technological trajectories as an outcome of the structure-agency interplay at the national level: In...

  • Understanding Machine Learning Practitioners' Data Documentation Perceptions, Needs, Challenges, and...

    Understanding Machine Learning Practitioners' Data Documentation Perceptions, Needs, Challenges, and...

  • Contextualizing Artificially Intelligent Morality: A Meta-Ethnography of Top-Down, Bottom-Up, and Hy...

    Contextualizing Artificially Intelligent Morality: A Meta-Ethnography of Top-Down, Bottom-Up, and Hy...

Partners

  •  
    U.S. Artificial Intelligence Safety Institute Consortium (AISIC) at NIST

  • Partnership on AI

  • The LF AI & Data Foundation

  • The AI Alliance

Footer

Categories


• Blog
• Research Summaries
• Columns
• Core Principles of Responsible AI
• Special Topics

Signature Content


• The State Of AI Ethics

• The Living Dictionary

• The AI Ethics Brief

Learn More


• About

• Open Access Policy

• Contributions Policy

• Editorial Stance on AI Tools

• Press

• Donate

• Contact

The AI Ethics Brief (bi-weekly newsletter)

About Us


Founded in 2018, the Montreal AI Ethics Institute (MAIEI) is an international non-profit organization equipping citizens concerned about artificial intelligence and its impact on society to take action.


Archive

  • © MONTREAL AI ETHICS INSTITUTE. All rights reserved 2024.
  • This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
  • Learn more about our open access policy here.
  • Creative Commons License

    Save hours of work and stay on top of Responsible AI research and reporting with our bi-weekly email newsletter.