Metz on African Moral Theory #PHIL320S21

In his article “Towards an African Moral Theory”, Metz discusses that, beyond what is nearly universally immoral (killing, stealing, etc.), there are certain moral principles, called ubuntu ethics, that have been observed more so in African cultures than in their Western counterparts. The first of these distinct values was particularly interesting to consider. Under ubuntu ethics, it is immoral to make policy decisions in the face of dissent, as opposed to seeking consensus. Metz mentions that, in fact, it is not uncommon for political discussions in small African communities to continue until a compromise is achieved, which he contrasts with the winner-take-all format of American politics. Additionally, when an official is elected, it is expected that he or she lead in the interests of all of the people, not those of a party. In the present, turbulent state of American politics, this value is one that would surely cultivate greater collective understanding and civility, while also more effectively addressing the issues for which government policies are formed.

As the article progressed, I found that more and more of Metz’s points seemed to directly address several moral deficiencies in our current political system. The second ubuntu ethical notion he makes is that it is immoral to make retribution the central focus of criminal justice as opposed to reconciliation. This concept of restorative justice is one that is desperately lacking, not only in our political systems, but in our moral ideology as a nation. He references the criminal trials related to crimes of apartheid in South Africa to show just how much influence this value has in African culture. Furthermore, in ubuntu ethics, it is immoral to establish wealth on a competitive basis rather than a cooperative one. American capitalism comes to mind as one begins to consider why, to that end, a country as developed as ours can encounter such an issue with the adequate distribution of critical resources. Similarly, he argues that it is immoral for individual rights to supercede basic needs when deciding how resources are to be distributed. Again, I am reminded of how our capitalist system favors those who are already blessed abundantly with resources over those who need them desperately.