Matteo Ricci's Debate with A Confucian on Whether A Child's Theft to Support His Parents Is Good or Evil

• Published in: 윤리연구, 1(131) pp. 259 - 278
• Main Author: 이종우
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: 한국윤리학회 01.12.2020
• Subjects: 학제간연구
• ISSN: 2982-5121; 2982-5334
• DOI: 10.15801/je.1.131.202012.259

A child's filial duty to his parents across is ethics in all the ages and countries of the world. If he has stolen to support his parents, is it good or evil? In this respect, Matteo Ricci, a Catholic missionary in China, had a debate with a Confucian scholar of China. This topic has not been researched until now, so I research on this. A Confucian regarded it as the will of goodness based on Confucian ethics, but Matteo Ricci argued it neither good will nor good deed. Because he regarded good act as based on good will. His argument was that a child's theft is evil, even if a will of child to support his parents, filial piety, is good, this is evil after all. That goodness is perfect. A child's support for his parents is good, while his theft evil. Because of this, that child's act is not perfect, so this is not good but evil. At the time, this was punished by Daiminglu (大明律, the Great Laws of Ming Dynasty) of China. Therefore, that Confucian ethics was not suitable for the laws of times but ideal family ethics only. According to Matteo Ricci, that child's act is evil because a theft is evil. By contrast, a filial piety is good, so child's act is good, according to the Confucian. According to Matteo Ricci, the root of Good act is good will. This was the influence of Thomas Aquinas based on Aristotle. Therefore, that of Matteo Ricci implies rather moral philosophy of Renaissance than Catholicism because Renaissance means the rediscovery of classical Greek philosophy, including Aristotle. Because of this, their debate is a representative debate between West and East. KCI Citation Count: 0