Allow me to begin this article unceremoniously and ask a question: “If you see a leopard pursuing an antelope, are you moved to support the leopard in its pursuit of the antelope, or the antelope in its pursuit of freedom from the leopard?” (The operative phrase being “moved to”).
I conducted a miniature research to find out how a few people think about ethics. The premise of the question is an inquisition of ethics and the moral purview of the human being (especially the African person).
Many referenced a “natural order of things”. A supposed view that that which must happen will happen. The natural order subjects the antelope to the hunting prowess of the leopard, therefore the leopard deserves the trophy (in this case the meal).
While this was an intriguing submission, I was particularly in awe of one that suggested that morality is a uniquely human invention.
While I will not take a position on that particular assertion, I must admit that there is a sense that morality is particularly unique to humans. While nature may have a sense of “good and evil”, the intricacies of a codified set of rules is intriguingly human in its very essence.
A question has been asked in the courts of philosophy – The Trolley Problem. Allow me to set the scene.
A trolley (or train for those who may associate the word trolley with a shopping cart) races down a track. You realize that there are 5 people tied to the track who are awaiting their imminent and unfortunate demise. You notice that there is a lever that you can pull to redirect the trolley to a track with only one person.
Some suggest that it is better for 1 to die than 5. Others suggest that pulling the lever is directly taking up responsibility for the death of the 1 person, while refusing to pull the lever was a refusal to take up any involvement and responsibility.
Complicated? Let’s take it further. Let’s imagine that those 5 people are hardened criminals. Is it better for the 5 to die or the 1?
Many other factors could be added to further complicate the question – age, gender, and more.
The trolley problem is a question that exemplifies the innate complexity of ethics. While there are many branches, and even schools of thought, when we speak of ethics, we realize that ethics and morality are not innately simple to resolve.
When introducing more factors to the trolley problem, we realize that the goal posts shift, because of various reasons. This does not make understanding ethics any easier.
Returning to our initial question, The Leopard Question, there are three basic answers: (1) the antelope; (2) the leopard; (3) stay out of it.
In attempting to understand these positions, we begin to see beyond the answer:
(1) The Antelope – it seems that, especially in literary forms, it is often expressed that there is one who is innately vested with the brand of good and the observer is then moved to “save” this “good persona”.
(2) The Leopard – the idea that the strong deserve to win. Those who are superior must come out as superior. This idea may be linked to a stratification, even of human beings, seeing some persons and person-groups being labeled as super-human, human, semi-human, or subhuman (with variations). This may even be linked to an imperial ideology.
(3) Stay out of it – or “it’s none of my business”. As long as the leopard does not pursue me, it does not matter what happens – an apathetic stance. This view may be linked to the politico-apathetic stance of many, and the ignorance of many towards injustices (including social injustices).
In considering ethics, it is crucial to recognize the role of cultural, historical, and social influences that shape our moral perspectives. What we deem “right” or “wrong” is often a reflection of our past, societal norms, and the environments in which we exist. This means that our moral frameworks are not only individual but also collective, owing their existence to centuries of philosophical, religious, and cultural development.
Essentially, while this is not a paper on the analysis on the right form of ethics, this article seeks to ask a question: Is it possible that an ethic can stem from a problematic theoretical framework? Could it be that one’s ethical code could be informed by questionable elements?
As an African, it is important to question if one’s ethics are informed by an anti-African imagination. It must be deemed possible that an African’s moral framework may be informed by a premise that seeks to undermine their very personhood. Therefore, it must be said that the exercise of the evaluation of individual and corporate ethics must be undertaken. How much of what we have as morality is informed by colonial influences, African cultural practices, neocolonial sentiments, or even critical analysis and synthesis? Do we truly understand, or we merely inherited our interpretation of what is good and evil?
Fundamentally, this is not an investigation of ethics. This, I believe, must call the reader to look within themselves and ask the pertinent question: “Why do I believe what I believe?”
The San African 