UBUNTU AS A MORAL THEORY AND HUMAN RIGHTS IN SOUTH AFRICA
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.22409/rcj.v3i5.231Keywords:
Teoria do Direito, História do Direito, Direito Constitucional, Direito Internacional, Direito Comparado, Instituições Políticas, Administração Pública, Jurisdição Constitucional, Constitutional Jurisdiction, Historia del Derecho.Abstract
Summary: There are three major reasons why ideas associated with ubuntu are often deemed to be an inappropriate basis for a public morality in today’ s South Africa. One is that they are too vague; a second is that they fail to acknowledge the value of individual freedom; and a third is that they fit traditional, small-scale culture more than a modern, industrial society. In this article, I provide a philosophical interpretation of ubuntu that is not vulnerable to these three objections. Specifically, I construct a moral theory grounded on Southern African world views, one that suggests a promising new conception of human dignity. According to this conception, typical human beings have a dignity by virtue of their capacity for community, understood as the combination of identifying with others and exhibiting solidarity with them, where human rights violations are egregious degradations of this capacity. I argue that this account of human rights violations straightforwardly entails and explains many different elements of South Africa’s Bill of Rights and naturally suggests certain ways of resolving contemporary moral dilemmas in South Africa and elsewhere relating to land reform, political power and deadly force. If I am correct that this jurisprudential interpretation of ubuntu both accounts for a wide array of intuitive human rights and provides guidance to resolve present-day disputes about justice, then the three worries about vagueness, collectivism and anachronism should not stop one from thinking that something fairly called “ubuntu’ can ground a public morality.
Keywords: Theory of Law; History of Law; Constitutional right; International right; Comparative law; Political Institutions; Public administration; Constitutional Jurisdiction.
Downloads
Published
Versions
- 2021-03-30 (2)
- 2016-11-19 (1)