Do Humans and Animals Innately Possess Morality, and Are Animals Capable of Moral Actions Like Humans?- A Comparison of Matteo Ricci and Zhu Xi

Abstract

Do both humans and animals innately possess morality? Can animals commit moral actions like humans? These topics have been important across the ages and in all countries. Matteo Ricci criticized Zhu Xi’s Neo-Confucianism on these issues. In this article, I compare their claims in this article. According to Ricci, onꠓly humans have been inherently endowed with morality by the supreme good, the Lord of Heaven, but have inherited evil due to the original sin of the first ancestor, Adam. Therefore, they inherently possess both good and evil, have the ability to choose between them, and can thus commit both good and evil acts. In contrast, animals are not endowed with morality but only instinct by the Lord of Heaven; therefore, they cannot commit moral actions. Unlike Ricci, Zhu Xi argued that both humans and animals are inherently endowed with morality because they were created by the movement of qi (氣 material force) following the good li (理 principle). However, humans possess all morals, whereas animals possess only one because humans’ qi is perfect, while animals’ qi is not. Consequently, humans can commit all moral actions, whereas animals can perform only one. For example, tigers and wolves innately have benevolence, which is exemplified by a mother’s love for her babies, and bees and ants innately have and act on righteousness, which is demonstrated by their loyalty to their ruler. Therefore, Ricci criticized Zhu’s concept of li because li is inherent within things and thus depends on them, making it incapable of creating all things like the Lord of Heaven. Ricci’s view was based on faith in the Lord of Heaven creating all things, while Zhu’s view was based on the law of nature, meaning all things are created by the movement of qi (氣 material force) following li (理 principle).