• Skip to main content
  • Skip to secondary menu
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
Montreal AI Ethics Institute

Montreal AI Ethics Institute

Democratizing AI ethics literacy

  • Articles
    • Public Policy
    • Privacy & Security
    • Human Rights
      • Ethics
      • JEDI (Justice, Equity, Diversity, Inclusion
    • Climate
    • Design
      • Emerging Technology
    • Application & Adoption
      • Health
      • Education
      • Government
        • Military
        • Public Works
      • Labour
    • Arts & Culture
      • Film & TV
      • Music
      • Pop Culture
      • Digital Art
  • Columns
    • AI Policy Corner
    • Recess
  • The AI Ethics Brief
  • AI Literacy
    • Research Summaries
    • AI Ethics Living Dictionary
    • Learning Community
  • The State of AI Ethics Report
    • Volume 6 (February 2022)
    • Volume 5 (July 2021)
    • Volume 4 (April 2021)
    • Volume 3 (Jan 2021)
    • Volume 2 (Oct 2020)
    • Volume 1 (June 2020)
  • About
    • Our Contributions Policy
    • Our Open Access Policy
    • Contact
    • Donate

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

ALL IN Conference 2025: Four Key Takeaways from Montreal

Beyond Dependency: The Hidden Risk of Social Comparison in Chatbot Companionship

AI Policy Corner: Restriction vs. Regulation: Comparing State Approaches to AI Mental Health Legislation

Beyond Consultation: Building Inclusive AI Governance for Canada’s Democratic Future

AI Policy Corner: U.S. Executive Order on Advancing AI Education for American Youth

related posts

  • Exploiting The Right: Inferring Ideological Alignment in Online Influence Campaigns Using Shared Ima...

    Exploiting The Right: Inferring Ideological Alignment in Online Influence Campaigns Using Shared Ima...

  • GenAI Against Humanity: Nefarious Applications of Generative Artificial Intelligence and Large Langu...

    GenAI Against Humanity: Nefarious Applications of Generative Artificial Intelligence and Large Langu...

  • A Virtue-Based Framework to Support Putting AI Ethics into Practice

    A Virtue-Based Framework to Support Putting AI Ethics into Practice

  • Fairness implications of encoding protected categorical attributes

    Fairness implications of encoding protected categorical attributes

  • Moral consideration of nonhumans in the ethics of artificial intelligence

    Moral consideration of nonhumans in the ethics of artificial intelligence

  • Research summary: A Focus on Neural Machine Translation for African Languages

    Research summary: A Focus on Neural Machine Translation for African Languages

  • Maintaining fairness across distribution shift: do we have viable solutions for real-world applicati...

    Maintaining fairness across distribution shift: do we have viable solutions for real-world applicati...

  • The Impact of the GDPR on Artificial Intelligence

    The Impact of the GDPR on Artificial Intelligence

  • The Ethics of Artificial Intelligence through the Lens of Ubuntu

    The Ethics of Artificial Intelligence through the Lens of Ubuntu

  • Robustness and Usefulness in AI Explanation Methods

    Robustness and Usefulness in AI Explanation Methods

Partners

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

  • Partnership on AI

  • The LF AI & Data Foundation

  • The AI Alliance

Footer


Articles

Columns

AI Literacy

The State of AI Ethics Report


 

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.

Contact

Donate


  • © 2025 MONTREAL AI ETHICS INSTITUTE.
  • 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.