株式会社極東書店トップ商品一覧Partiality and Impartiality in African Philosophy.

商品詳細

Partiality and Impartiality in African Philosophy.

Partiality and Impartiality in African Philosophy.

・ISBN 978-1-4985-9943-6 hard GB£ 85.00

¥26,928.- (税込) (※)価格はご注文時の参考価格となります。
納品価格につきましては書籍の入荷時点で確定となります。
版元の原価改定、外国為替の変動等により異なる場合がございますので、予めご了承下さい。

お気に入り

電子版あり 大学・学術機関向け電子ブック(eBook)ISBN 978-1-4985-9944-3

電子版あり 大学・学術機関向け電子ブック(eBook)ISBN 978-1-9787-2410-5

著者・編者Molefe, M.,
シリーズAfrican Philosophy: Critical Perspectives and Global Dialogue
出版社(Lexington Books, US)
出版年月2021.11
ページ数180 pp.
言語ENG
ニュース番号<675-132 675-87>

解説

Partiality and Impartiality in African Philosophy fills the lacuna in African philosophy literature on the inherent tension between requirements of partiality (favoritism) and impartiality (equality). Motsamai Molefe deploys two strategies to philosophically resolve the tension between partiality and impartiality. The first strategy involves applying the moral theories of Kwasi Wiredu, Thaddeus Metz, and Kwame Gyekye to the problem. Finding their views useful in some ways and seriously limited in others, Molefe turns to the second strategy in which he invokes the salient normative concept of personhood in African cultures. Molefe argues that the concept of personhood adjoins theories of human dignity and moral perfection (virtue). The major insight that emerges is a robust ethical theory qua personhood that accommodates both partiality and impartiality. He grounds requirements of impartiality on human dignity, which operates largely as a macro-ethical concept that normatively informs the character of our social institutions (politics). Politics is characterized by fairness, equality, and impartiality. Partiality (the agent-and-other-centred forms of it) is directly connected with the agent's chief moral duty to achieve her own virtue (moral perfection), which operates as a micro-ethical concept. These two kinds of moral partialism, self-favoritism and close ties such as family, are justified by appeal to the project's view, instead of the individuals-and-relationships view typically invoked to justify moral partiality in the literature.