200182

Ethics and Christian Values NETV100

QUESTON 1
a) Examine TWO core or fundamental African ethical principles that are violated by Jah
Prayzah’s alleged moral behavior
The actions of Jah Prayzah can be considered ethically wrong in many different ways in the
African Culture. There were many ethical principles that were violated by this act but I will focus
mainly on two. The act of adultery especially in that involves married people affects so many
people because many people are involved excluding the parties that were involved in the act
that is why I will use the Beneficence and the non-maleficence ethical principles for this
analysis.
The Beneficence principal bases on the argument that everyone is obligated to do good.
Everyone is morally obligated to do everything in their power to minimize harm to others and
maximize good. In the case of Jah Prayzah this moral principal is violated in more ways than
one. Culturally the act in itself shows a lack of personhood or what would be referred to in
African ethics as Ubuntu. This means that instead of bringing honor to his family he has brought
upon them great dishonor to the people in his family, which in this case he has done no good.
This has then gone against the principal of beneficence. This principal suggests that all the
actions that a person is to do they must be doing good and adultery is not in any way a good
thing.
Another principal that was violated would be the non-maleficence theory. This theory now is
based on the argument that people should always aim to do no harm. Nobody should ever
intentionally cause harm to another person. This can either be physical harm, mentally,
financially or emotionally harm another person. In his act of having an extra-marital affair,
much worse with a married woman Jah Prayzah intentionally put so many people in a mental
state of distress. So many innocent people were affected by this selfish act. His wife and the
husband of the woman that he had the affair with were caused great harm. The children if the
woman had any, along with Jah Prayzah’s children were exposed to so much trauma that no
child should ever have to go through. Africanity always emphasizes on the issue of
brotherhood. We are all one big family and no one would go out of their way to harm a brother.
However, the actions of this man go completely against this principal.
The actions of Jah Prayzah were completely unethical. The way his actions were inconsiderate
to so many people including those not mentioned above like the loyal fans that looked up to
him just show the extent to which the ethical principals were violated. Not only did he choose
to do no good. He also chose to do harm.
200182

b) Pass moral judgment on the moral behavior that Jah Prayzah is alleged to have been
involved in above using three [3] of the following ethical theories:
ii. Christian Ethics

According to Christian ethics, Jah Prayzah’s actions were morally wrong. He committed
adultery. Adultery according to the bible can be defined as having sexual relations with a
married person or with anyone who one is not married to. Adultery is said to start in the mind
as Jesus states on the sermon on the mount that by merely looking at a person lustfully one has
already committed adultery.
Adultery has always been viewed as morally wrong in the bible since the beginning. In Christian
ethics Jesus gave it as the only reason that a married couple are allowed to divorce. That is how
bad it is viewed. Jah Prayzah not only had sexual relations with a person to whom he was not
married, but with a married woman. According to Christian ethics marriage is a sacred tie
between two people and it is recognized by God. Breaking this tie therefore is unethical not
only to man but before God.
Another reason why Christian ethics would view Jah Prayzah’s actions as immoral is the fact
that his actions go against one of the fundamental principles on which Christian ethics bases
upon which is the principal of Love. Jesus call when asked what the most important
commandment is, he says that it is to love the Lord your God and after that it was said to love
your neighbor as you love yourself. Jah Prayzah’s actions did not honor any of these commands.
The love of God would mean that a person would follow all of his commandments and do as
they say and God says that one should not have sexual relations with anyone that is not their
spouses. The love of one’s neighbor would mean that a person would not do anything to harm
their neighbor in anyway and his actions caused great harm mentally to his family and the
family of the person with whom he had relations with.
Adultery normally involves breaking mor than one Christian principle. It often involves other
issues like lying since one needs to come up with excuse as to where one is going and this
creates a lot of trust issues in any household.
Conclusively, it is quite clear to determine that Christian ethics would deem the actions of Jah
Prayzah as morally wrong and unethical
200182

iii. Kantianism
According to Immanuel Kant, certain types of actions were absolutely prohibited no matter the
context. Even if the action would possibly bring more happiness than the alternative, if
something as wrong it was wrong. According to Kantian ethics, for something to be considered
ethically right, one must ask themselves if their action can be universally applied. This is to say,
is there a way that one can get people without forcing them, to act in the way that one
proposes they act? And that does one’s actions respect human goals or are they merely for
one’s selfish gain? If the answer to any or both of these questions is no then the action cannot
be considered as morally right.
Analyzing Jah Prayzah’s actions according to this Kantian View, we can say that his actions were
morally wrong. The act of infidelity is wrong and therefore there can be no reason to justify it.
There is no way to Justify his actions. I don’t think there is a way to rationally will people to act
in the way that he did. Also, his actions do not in anyway respect the goals of human beings. His
actions do not therefore fulfill any of the specifications of morality according to Kant.
Another Kantian principal that could be used to judge this issue would be the analysis of
Immanuel Kant on sex. Kant said that sex was only permissible within a heterosexual marriage.
Anything outside of this setup he considered morally wrong. He believed that sex in itself was
morally problematic to the extent that it requires the traditional solution of a heterosexual
marriage.
Jah Prayzah’s affair happened outside of the context of a heterosexual marriage. It was not
between a married couple therefore according to Kantian ethics his actions can be ruled out as
ethically wrong or immoral.
200182

iv. Utilitarianism

A utilitarian approach to ethics is one that holds the belief that an action may be viewed as
morally right action if it produces the most good. An action cannot be moral if it does good for
only a few people and causes harm to the majority. The right action is determined entirely on
the consequences that it produces. One must maximize overall good for something to be moral.
Under the utilitarianism principal, there is impartiality and neutrality meaning everyone’s
happiness counts the same. That is to say that one person’s good counts no more than the next
person’s.
In a case like this of adultery, only two people are likely to get any happiness from this act while
the majority of other parties involved are most likely to be harmed. Most of the time, adultery
is likely to please just two people. This thus makes it immoral according to the Unilateralistic
point of view.

With this in mind we then take the case of Jah Prayzah. If we were to weigh the amount of
people that were harmed by his actions (his wife, his children, the husband of the woman he
had an affair with, her children both their external families, disappointed fans etc.) against the
number of people that benefitted from the affair (him and his mistress) the utilitarian ethical
approach would deem their actions immoral and unethical.
200182

Discuss briefly TWO positive and TWO negative sanctions that were used to convey moral
teachings in the African Traditional Society. [20]

The African traditional society uses so many sanctions as a means to of conveying moral and
ethical teachings. Some methods were good and others seemed to do more harm than good.
The people in the African traditional society have been known to use stories as a means to
teach morals lessons. There over hundreds and thousands of African folktales that have been
told over the years in several different African languages that were used to tach children about
what is right and what is wrong. It is always easy to teach a child when they are having fun.
Stories are usually told by the elders to the children. These are often the stages when children
first learn about crime and punishment. These stories are often about a person or animal that
breaks a moral rule and falls upon a terrible fate thereafter. Children are also told of the
benefits behind good deeds. They are taught to be kind, patient virtuous, brave, strong and so
many other admirable qualities in these stories.
Another positive sanction used to give moral teachings in the African traditional society would
be proverbs. Proverbs are wise words from the elders to the young ones after they have learnt
200182

a lot from their experiences in this life. Proverbs may be a little hard to understand as they are
not always direct but they are nuggets of really useful information that can be used for so many
generations. Proverbs are not laws but rather advice that one might chose to take and avoid
unnecessary bad consequences or simply listen to.
Although there were good methods of teaching ethical and moral lessons some are not as
good. For one superstitious myths were nothing by negative as they led to so many
unnecessary deaths sometimes. For example, the myth that albinos bring bad luck into the
family. This was not at all true. It is still the belief in some areas and even though they are not
allowed to kill anymore this is still the reason behind a lot of stigma and discrimination. There
also myths about twins and how both of them could not be allowed to live and one had to be
killed
Another method used to enforce and teach moral lessons which was very harsh was
executions. People were executed for the smallest things. For example, if people were to
assume that one was a witch that person would not even be allowed to defend themselves.
Even if there was no method to prove their theory the person would still be killed. This resulted
in the death of so many innocent people. This method of teaching morals seems to be morally
wrong itself.