What is Kwasi Wiredu’s argument that social status matters for personhood from his description of the Akan term “onipa”?
- Onipa refers to a member of a biological species or human who has attained a special social status
- Wiredu argues that the term onipa suggests an important difference between human and person. He argues that human refers to a biological entity that does not admit of degrees; essentially being a human is necessary not sufficient, for being a person. Being a human is discrete- one is or is not a human being- marked by the possession of okra, which is the life giving entity
- Person on the other hand is an entity with special moral and metaphysical qualities, that is continuous- one can more or less be a person, depending on various conditions of social status: a person is then someone who has matured economically and socially, and someone who has me weighty responsibilities to their family and community.
How does Kwame Gyekye object to Wiredu’s argument about social status?
He acknowledges that some expressions in Akan suggest social status matters for personhood, however these expressions merely reflect “status, habits, and personality or character traits” over one’s life NOT moral worth
What is Wiredu’s social argument regarding infants and death?
- He uses this argument to show the distinction between human and person based on social differences
- He argues that infants, which are also called onipa, are afforded a baseline of respect in virtue of their possession of okra. However he says, there are some important social differences; there are no funerals for infants and infants are candidates for reincarnation,while human beings who have lived a full life, by contrast, have extravagant funerals and become ancestors. His point is that the differences in social convention suggest a difference between “human” and “person”.
gyekye’s objection to wiredus social argument about death
- The cultural practices of infant treatment, funerals, and beliefs about reincarnation serve a useful function- but that’s it.
- Yes the size and magnitude of death celebration depends on the social status of the deceased individual- but this is independent of their status as persons or how much moral worth they are entitled to.
- It is not about the deceased individual, but the onlookers.
- Reincarnation is not part of the factual notion of personhood- it’s more of a motivation or instrument of social reinforcement to foster traits such as cooperation and industry.
According to Wiredu and Gyekye, what does it mean to be a moral agent among the Akan?
- To be a moral agent among the Akan according to Wiredu means to successfully carry out duties and responsibilities and strive to reach higher levels of personhood.
- Are capable of exercising moral sense
- There are some duties without corresponding rights that the individual moral agent ought to be concerned about
- To be a moral agent means to pursue dual responsibility to both themselves and the community, this requires the development of one’s capacities through one’s own exertions, strivings, and self attention. Through this the individual person should attain some appropriate status socially, economically, and intellectually which produces positive value to the community.
- Morality is necessarily social so to be a moral agent requires attention to the social implications of one’s action and concentrated stress on kinship
For Wiredu, what does it mean to be held morally responsible, and under what circumstances would one transition from irresponsibility to non-responsibility?
To be held morally responsible means that an individual must be able to retain self-identity in conduct. An individual is responsible if and only if she is amenable in both thought and action to rational persuasion and moral correction. One transitions from irresponsibility to non-responsibility when the causes of one’s erratic or immoral behavior can be identified. Irresponsibility seems to refer to deliberate disregard for one’s moral obligations while non-responsibility refers to situations where individuals may not be held morally-accountable due to some factor outside of their control.
According to Wiredu, what Akan practices are necessary for achieving personhood?
According to Wiredu one must make concrete material contributions to one’s lineage in order to achieve personhood. Marriage and procreation are necessary but not sufficient conditions for personhood. Additional examples include building stuff, and participating in civic rituals and fellowship associations
What objection does this raise against Wiredu’s view (Akan practices)
If individuals are (partly) constituted by their community, and all moral values are set by the community, then this undermines the prospect of moral progress- because one is a person insofar as they follow community guidelines- this is problematic because we think that individuals can make choices and have goals that are not merely dictated by the community, it is also problematic because we care about the prospect of reform and change- the possibility that society can improve over time
gyekye and wiredu reply to the objection regarding akan practices
Moral reformers are possible-
- One can distance oneself from one’s community, and a moral reformer might stand against community values with reasons, and change them for the better
- Moral reformers also have “tickets” to the ancestral world.
Describe one thing that Wiredu and Gyekye disagree upon, and two things that they both agree upon regarding the Akan concept of persons.
- Wiredu and Gyekye disagree about whether social status matters for personhood/moral worth. Wiredu believes that social status matters for personhood/moral worth while Gyekye believes that social status does not matter for personhood/moral worth
- They both agree that everyone is entitled to a baseline of respect in virtue of the possession of okra, and that individuals can critically assess and reform their communal values (moral progress is possible)
maximalist view
- Holds that the community defines a person
Sees an individual as not merely a set of biological facts, but also composed of communal facts, such as language, sense of self-identity, and social rules - The individual and community are completely intertwined- there is an ongoing improvement in both the community and the person and the embeddedness of the person into the community under this view a moral person is able to use his rationality to think or reflect and use his autonomy to act in a way that improves the community, which also improves the person
minimalist view
Person defines community
- A purely biological and metaphysical view of humans
- A person in the biological and metaphysical minimal sense is able to move processually to the status of social-moral personhood
- An isolated static quality of individuals- rationality, will, or memory
- Whoever has soul, rationality, will, or memory is seen as entitled to the description “person” in a minimal sense.
- The individual’s relation to community under the minimalist view is additive or an aggregated sum of individuals- community signifies nothing more than a mere collection of self-interested persons, each with his private set of preferences, bit all of whom get together nonetheless because they realize, each to each, that in association they can accomplish things which they are not able to accomplish otherwise. community/society is used to represent the aggregated sum of individuals comprising it.
organic constitution
- In collectivities there is assumed to be an organic dimension to the relationship between the component individuals- community moves from society to individuals.
- African community is independent and prior to the individuals that it grants personhood to. Communities are collectivities that arise organically. Duties to community are first, then rights are afforded on the basis that one’s duties are fulfilled- organic collectivities might include families or neighborhoods
non-organic constitution
- The bringing together of atomic individuals into a unit more akin to an association than to a community.
- The western view of community is non-organic, and asserts that community moves from individuals to society
- Western community is the sum of persons with different ideas and preferences. Rights are granted to all and duties come second
