Core aspects of ubuntu : a systematic review

• Pages: 93-103
• Published date: 01 December 2019
• DOI: 10.10520/EJC-1c8f827d83
• Author: S. Hall,C. Ewuoso
• Date: 01 December 2019
• Record Number: m_sajbl_v12_n2_a12

December 2019, Vol. 12, No. 2 SAJBL 93

REVIEW

Ubuntu has been proposed as a useful alternative to current (Western)

ethical frameworks for evaluating global bioethical issues[1-5] and

contributing theoretical diversity to the clinical context.[6-8] Ubuntu,

Komparic[3] and others such as Cilliers[9] contend, is an African moral

system that has been influential across a wide geographical area,

and over a long timespan, south of the Sahara. This philosophy has

its origins in the pre-colonial era, but has risen to prominence in the

philosophical literature in post-apartheid South Africa (SA). Ubuntu is

principally a normative ethical system among the people of southern

Africa.[10, 11] It must also be emphasised, however, that ubuntu should

not necessarily be taken to be representative of all ethical thinking in

Africa.[12] In addition, the question as to how widely held this theory

is in practice is researchable, but outside the scope of this study.

Metz,[4,13] for example, has observed that his particular philosophical

construction of ubuntu is not necessarily widely believed or applied.

Ubuntu nonetheless encompasses a range of salient behaviours, ways

of thinking and favoured norms, which are not necessarily unique to

Africa, but neither have these behaviours and ways of thinking come

to it from other continents.[14-21]

Recently, a flurry of writings have emerged regarding this ethical

theory, which some scholars such as Matolino[22] have described

as largely confusing and as containing competing interpretations

of ubuntu. For this reason, it can be challenging to understand this

ethical theory, or to identify specific moral rules for ethical decision-

making that may arise from it. The goal of the present study is

therefore descriptive: firstly, to contribute towards a definition of

ubuntu that encompasses the common themes that appear in existing,

and sometimes competing, interpretations, and secondly, to highlight

specific moral rules for ethical decision-making that arise from this

theory in the context of clinical care and bioethics more globally.

The study is neither an attempt to reinvent ubuntu nor an attempt

to rescue it from its critics. Rather, it will carefully organise existing

thoughts on the nature of ubuntu in order to answer the stated

research question via the methodology of a systematic review. We

are not aware of any study that has directly considered the research

objectives defined in this way, although some studies[23-28] have

offered a narrative literature review of existing writings on ubuntu. In

the next few paragraphs, we shall motivate the use of a systematic,

rather than narrative, review for the descriptive aim of this study.

Narrative literature reviews and systematic literature reviews are

differentiated by the methodology they employ for the selection

of reviewed studies. A narrative review qualitatively summarises

evidence on a topic using informal or subjective methods to select

studies. In a narrative review, the selection process may be arbitrary:

the reasons for preferring one study to another are usually not stated.

Other information such as the method used for searching relevant

materials, searched database(s), the material selection process, search

strings and so on are often not provided in such studies. All of this can

potentially increase study bias as the researcher may, for example, be

more inclined to include texts with which they are most familiar, or

that confirm their own views.

Systematic reviews, on the other hand, are regarded as a thorough,

less biased and more objective methodology for answering

descriptive questions,[29-33] such as the one posed in this study. A

This open access article is distributed under

Creative Commons licence CC-BY-NC 4.0.

Core aspects of ubuntu: A systematic review

C Ewuoso, PhD; S Hall, PhD

Centre for Applied Ethics, Department of Philosophy, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, Stellenbosch University, Cape Town, South Africa

Corresponding author: C Ewuoso (corneliusewuoso@bioethicscenter.net)

Background. Ubuntu has been proposed as a useful alternative to current (Western) ethical frameworks for evaluating global bioethical

issues, contributing theoretical diversity to the clinical context. However, the literature regarding this philosophy is often described as

confusing, and is characterised by a number of competing interpretations.

Objective. To arrive, by way of a systematic review, at a definition of ubuntu that encompasses the common themes that appear in competing

interpretations.

Methods. Searches were done in PhilPaper, PubMed and Google Scholar using a variety of search strings, generating 1 207 hits. After screening

for English language, as well as relevance of the article after reading the title, abstract and full text, 99 articles were included for review. Another

17 articles were identified through snowballing and additional searches, giving a total of 116 articles that were included in the review.

Results. This review shows that ubuntu is an essentially relational ethics, which prizes relationships of interdependence, fellowship, reconciliation,

relationality, community friendliness, harmonious relationships and other-regarding actions such as compassion and actions that are likely to be

good for others, in which actions are morally right to the extent that they honour the capacity to relate communally, reduce discord or promote

friendly relationships with others, and in which the physical world and the spiritual world are fundamentally united.

Conclusion. Scholars, health professionals, policy makers and others should be aware that an alternative ethical theory exists in the global

South that may be applied to address a variety of global (bio)ethical issues. Further research, however, is needed to evaluate how properly

action-guiding this formulation is in particular contexts.

S Afr J Bioethics Law 2019;12(2):93-103. https://doi.org/10.7196/SAJBL.2019.v12i2.679