3.8 Review

Core aspects of ubuntu: A systematic review

期刊

出版社

HEALTH & MEDICAL PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.7196/SAJBL.2019.v12i2.679

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

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 idenified 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.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据