Abstract

Are humans inherently good or not? Do humans inherently possess goodness, or is goodness defined by moral action? This article examines these questions through the debate between King Jeongjo and Jeong Yakyong. Previous researchers did not recognize Jeong Yakyong’s philosophical shift. In their debate, both agreed with Mencius’s claim that human nature is good. However, Jeongjo interpreted Mencius’s argument through Zhu Xiss concepts of li 理 and ki 氣, and his interpretation shared a common point with the Horak 湖洛 scholars. After Jeogjo’s death, Jeong revised his claim, asserting that humans are not innately good but possess a nature inclined toward goodness, which causes them to feel shame when they commit evil. This perspective deviated from Jeongjo and Mencius. Jeong’s assertion incorporated Matteo Ricci’s ideas, thereby enabling him to develop a unique standpoint. Therefore, Jeong argued that ren 仁 refers to a moral action, and not to an innate morality within humans. He drew this idea from Confucius’s concept of ren, which differed from the perspectives of Ricci, Mencius, and Jeongjo, as well as from Yi Ik he paid respect to. Thus, Jeong’s ideas were newly formed through Confucian moral philosophy, while Jeongjo grounded his views within the framework of Zhu.