Universality Without Uniformity Analysis

Universality without Uniformity can be explained with moral pluralism. It states that there is no single and complete rational ordering of rationally relevant goods. Schweder states that at some point, human reason reaches a limit that allows for discretion as to which values or goods to favour. Moral pluralists believe that there is no distinct ordering of moral codes and goods. Because there are many questions directed towards moral codes and their relevance in society this leads members, of different cultures, to disagree on what is important and what is pointless.

Different societies or communities have different moral codes/beliefs and place different levels value onto these beliefs. Schweder uses the example of the town of Bhubaneswear

Metz states that poorer communities survive on communal support and unity which he then sees as a factor in defining Ubuntu. But this account of Ubuntu is vague and isolates Ubuntu as something which only the poor can identify with instead of a principle which the masses can identify with. In order to find clarification Metz looks to Tutu and his definition of Ubuntu which states that collective unity is most important and any action which threatens this unity should be avoided and prevented. Matters and actions which can be seen as selfish threaten this unity and the good of the community. This reinforces the idea that Ubuntu is focused on the individual’s relationship with the collective rather than only the individual. Therefore Metz’s definition of Ubuntu reinforces the idea that one has to be selfless and not selfish and should be focused on the collective’s success instead of one’s own success. Metz’s accounts of Ubuntu need to be further clarified in order to have a clear understanding of what Ubuntu is and

Making individual freedom have the same level of importance discredits the idea that Ubuntu is “communitarian”. If one’s actions come from considering the effects of the community this causes a conflict within the theory. If an action disrupts unity based on the fact that it is morally right this could mean that only considering the collective is futile. Metz’s theory can be seen as “more liberal than communitarian” based on the fact that it is unclear whether the community is embraced or not. Focusing on the individual’s rights also seems like a more liberal idea instead of communitarian. Oyowe also argues that there is also a possibility that the idea of embracing both the collective and the individual can be seen as a distinctive feature within Ubuntu and that both ideas can be