A Critique of Traditional Igbo and Yoruba Moral Perspectives on Evil
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Evil and its moral consequences are problematic as far as human societies are concerned, whether primitive or civilised. As humans experience or cope with the reality of evil in its various forms in daily existence, every cultural group finds ways of explaining and contending with it in its world view. Perspectives on the existence of evil are as real in Africa as they are in other parts of the world. Going by this, Africans have reflected on questions concerning what is evil culturally and religiously, both which cannot be detached from moral viewpoints on evil. Despite the influences of foreign cultures as Christianity and Islam, certain primordial convictions endured in Igbo and Yoruba cultures. As its objective, this article explores the moral issues arising from their traditional cultural perspective on evil, especially as relating to the existence of evil and moral responsibility. To achieve this objective, the article is woven around the following research questions: What are the distinctive Igbo and Yoruba traditional perceptions of evil in their world views? How do these affect considerations of moral responsibility? Methodologically, the paper applies philosophical argumentation and analysis in interrogation of the issues involved in its objectives.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.056 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".