Cited by 256African cultural and philosophical studiesEthics and bioethics in healthcarePhilosophical Ethics and Theory

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 100 of the 100 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 117 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

Core aspects of ubuntu: A systematic review

Open access
Ewuoso, C, Hall, S·2019·South African Journal of Bioethics and Law

Abstract

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.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This systematic review synthesises 116 articles to define ubuntu as an essentially relational African ethics centred on interdependence, fellowship, reconciliation, harmonious relationships and other-regarding action. It proposes that actions are morally right insofar as they honour communal relationships, reduce discord or promote friendly relationships, with the physical and spiritual worlds fundamentally united.

Key findings

  • Across 116 reviewed articles, ubuntu is described as an essentially relational ethics that prizes interdependence, fellowship, reconciliation, relationality, community friendliness, harmonious relationships and other-regarding actions such as compassion.
  • The review’s common formulation is that 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 spiritual world are fundamentally united.
  • Personhood/humanness is moralised and developed through communal relationships: one becomes more or less of a person/human through other-regarding behaviour, solidarity and thinking of oneself as “we” rather than “I”.
  • The authors argue this formulation may supplement principlism in clinical ethics and help address global bioethical issues, but state that further research is needed to evaluate how properly action-guiding it is in particular contexts.

Methods

  • The review adapted four PRISMA steps: framing a research question, systematic searching, pre-specified selection criteria, and presentation of results. Searches were conducted in PhilPapers, PubMed and Google Scholar between 21 and 24 July 2017, with additional searches in Philosopher’s Index and Stellenbosch University’s online library database, generating 1 207 hits.
  • Screening excluded 5 articles for English language, 952 after title/abstract, 70 after full text, and 86 duplicates, leaving 99 articles. Another 14 were identified through snowballing; African Journals Online generated 11 hits of which 1 satisfied criteria; 2 more were identified after PhilPapers system updates, giving 116 articles included for review.
  • Data extraction used conventional analysis, specifically a Q methodological/Q-sort approach in ATLAS.ti to sort viewpoints into broader categories. Eligibility included English-language studies offering substantial and original descriptions of ubuntu; books, book summaries, book reviews and unpublished materials were excluded.

Limitations

  • The paper states that searching PubMed, PhilPapers and Google Scholar, with additional screenings in Philosopher’s Index and Stellenbosch University’s online library database, may have unintentionally excluded relevant studies indexed elsewhere; the strict screening process and English-language restriction may also have excluded relevant materials, and excluding books is acknowledged as another limitation.
  • The authors state that providing a theoretical formulation does not itself show it is valuable or useful in practice, and that future studies are needed to provide evaluative arguments, apply the formulation to global (bio)ethical issues, highlight contrasting views among ubuntu scholars, and test how action-guiding it is in particular contexts.
  • Evident from the text: the Q methodology is described as primarily exploratory and not aimed at proving hypotheses, and the authors note that no single systematic review can complete the objective of defining ubuntu, describing this as a first step and the first attempt to use Q-sort for this purpose.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.7196/sajbl.2019.v12i2.00679

Cites

100 of 100 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

0 of 117 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

Show all 23 claims

  • Probably not a substantial claim. 82
  • It may state two separate claims as one. 50
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 1
102 of 102
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The reviewed ethical literature is representative and sufficient to identify the core aspects of ubuntu.

    “this review of existing ethical literature on ubuntu philosophy shows that each person is never alone, but is constituted by webs of interconnection”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The reviewed studies' views can be synthesized into a single coherent formulation of ubuntu.

    “The core aspects of ubuntu, as described in the reviewed ethical literature, include the essentially relational nature of this ethical theory”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The included studies are representative of the broader literature on ubuntu.

    “Notwithstanding these limitations, we are optimistic that this formulation captures what most ubuntu scholars would accept as constituting the core aspects of this ethical theory.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The common themes that run across existing interpretations of ubuntu constitute its core aspects.

    “This systematic review is a contribution towards providing a definition of ubuntu that encompasses the common themes which runs across existing, and sometimes competing, interpretation of the same.”
4 of 4

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 97 references

Research works printed but not linked: 17

  1. Gade CBN. The historical development of the written discourses on Ubuntu. S Afr J Philos 2011;30(3):303-329. https://doi.org/10.4314/sajpem.v30i3.69578 · DOI
  2. Hoffmann N, Metz T. What can the capabilities approach learn from an ubuntu ethic? A relational approach to development theory. World Dev 2017;97, 153-164. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.04.010 · DOI · Paper page
  3. Hailey J. Ubuntu: A literature review. London: Tutu Foundation, 2008.
  4. Russell R, Chung M, Balk EM, et al. Issues and challenges in conducting systematic reviews to support development of nutrient reference values. Workshop Summary: Nutrition Research Series, Vol. 2. Rockville, MD: AHRQ Publicationss; 2009.
  5. Eze M. What is African communitarianism? Against consensus as a regulative ideal. S AfrJ Philos 2008;27(4):386-299. https://doi.org/ 10.4314/sajpem.v27i4.31526 · DOI
  6. Metz T. Ethics in Aristotle and in Africa: Some points of contrast. Phronimon 2012;13(2):99-117.
  7. Le Grange L. Ubuntu, ukama, environment and moral education. J Moral Educ 2012;41(3):329-340.
  8. Metz T. Ubuntu: The good life. In: Michalos AC, ed. Encyclopedia of Quality of Life and Well-Being Research. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, 2014:6761-6765.
  9. Nussbaum B. Ubuntu: Reflections of a South African on our common humanity. Reflections 2003;4(4):21-6.
  10. Murove MF. Ubuntu. Diogenes 2012;59(3-4):36-47.
  11. Dolamo R. Botho/ubuntu: The heart of African ethics. Scriptura 2014;112(2013):1- 10. https://doi.org/ 10.7833/112-0-781-10 · DOI
  12. Metz T. A bioethic of communion: Beyond care and the four principles with regard to reproduction. In: Soniewicka M, ed. The Ethics of Reproductive Genetics - Between Utility, Principles and Virtues. New York, NY: Springer International Publishing AG, 2017.
  13. Metz T. Recent philosophies of social protection: From capability to ubuntu. Glob Soc Pol 2016;16(2):132-150.
  14. Metz T. The Western ethic of care or an afro-communitarian ethic? Finding the right relational morality. J Glob Ethics 2013;9(1):77-92.
  15. Chisale S. Love, discipline, punishment or wife battering: A view from ubuntu. Gender Behav 2016;14(2):7275-83.
  16. Metz T. African ethics and journalism ethics: News and opinion in light of ubuntu. J Mass Media Ethics 2015;30(2):74-90.
  17. Metz T. An ubuntu-based evaluation of the South African state's responses to Marikana: Where's the reconciliation? Politikon 2017;44(2):287-303.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–200 of 255

Metadata

Authors
Ewuoso, C., & Hall, S.
Affiliations
Stellenbosch University (ZA)
Venue
South African Journal of Bioethics and Law
Published
2019-12-17
Volume
12
Issue
2
Pages
93
ISSN
1999-7639 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2995019185
Cited by
256
References
97
Citations by year
2026: 101 · 2025: 42 · 2024: 53 · 2023: 25 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 1
FWCI
2.37
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc
Locations
South African Journal of Bioethics and Law (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › African cultural and philosophical studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics and bioethics in healthcare
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Philosophical Ethics and Theory
Keywords
Ubuntu, relational ethics, African philosophy, global bioethics, interdependence, community, reconciliation, compassion

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-11-05, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-11-05 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review