​​According to Wiredu, there is a difference between being a person and being a human being for the Akan. According to the definition of a real onipa, it is “a living being of human parentage who through the biological, psychological, cognitive, and moral apprenticeship of a childhood exposed to moral persuasion and correction has come to develop moral sensibilities and rational habits conducive to a productive and edifying life in society.” It means that a person needs to be able to reason, which can be gained or lost to varying degrees through concern for and empathy for others, especially those with relationships and communities.

This distinction is significant because it relates to moral standing. Someone must be a person in order to have a moral status. In order to take care of your family, neighbors, and the community at large, one needs to feel a feeling of community. However, you must gain respect and honor relationships in order to reach this status. Someone who goes above and beyond to care for others, not just their family, will be viewed as a person and gain more respect than someone who only takes care of their own needs and those of their family. In this sense, moral standing is similar to social standing within a society, and anyone who refuses to accept responsibility is not seen as a person in that community. In other words, moral standing is determined by one’s deeds. Akan culture “forbids holding funeral services for newborn deaths. In fact, if the deceased was a baby, the parents are urged to eat normally and engage in all the activities associated with happier times.” but Wiredu also argues that infants are also persons meaning they also have morality and rationality but it slightly differs because a baby can not make personal decisions. The contrast between family responsibility and “community” is one important claim in this reading and it made me think.

As a person who was brought up in an African home, I do feel some level of obligation to others in my community and I was brought up not only to care for myself but people around me as well, which is distinct from the responsibility I feel towards my family. I disagree with the Akan point of view of describing a person because I believe any individual is a person regardless of what they do in their community and I feel they should be social rankings in order to differentiate who is caring for others aside from his or her family and not describing someone who is doing well for others as a person and someone who is not helping others as not a person. For instance, every individual has responsibilities and in most African cultures, a father is called a man if he is able to provide for his family, which is far different from the case for the Akan when it comes to defining a person.

In my opinion, a person must take full responsibility to care for themselves unless they are in any position where they can not manage and I believe Parents must take care of their children too, but I disagree with the idea that they must also take care of others in order for them to be seen as a person. What if the people they are attempting to assist have everything they need to take care of themselves but are simply irresponsible? Does that make a difference? I typically agree that if you lose your legal obligations to others, you lose virtue but that should not be a case of defining someone as a person.