If people only want life, why not use those who can have life? If people are more terrible than the dead, why not treat the sick? If you are right, you are born unnecessary. If you are right, you can make trouble without doing anything. A bowl of rice, a bowl of soup, you can live if you get it, but you will starve if you don't get it. But with disdain to drink and eat, hungry pedestrians are unwilling to accept it; Kick others' food with their feet, and beggars will not accept it.
A meal, a bowl of bean soup, if you get it, you will live, if you get it, you will die, and if you shout, people in the street will accept it; Begging for help is too much. I accepted it for 10,000 minutes without arguing about propriety. What does ten thousand minutes do to me? For the beauty of the palace, wives and concubines, poor people? Hometown is free from physical death, and today is the beauty of the palace; Die for yourself, not subject to it, and now be regarded as a wife; Is it right to do this in order to refuse to accept death and to help the poor? This is called the loss of humanity. "
2. Translation:
Fish is my favorite, and bear's paw is also my favorite. If I can't have both, then I have to give up fish and choose bear's paw. Life is what I love, and righteousness is what I love. If you can't have both at the same time, then I'll have to give my life for justice. Life is what I love, but there are some things I love more than life, so I don't drag out an ignoble existence; I hate death, but there are some things that I hate more than death, so I don't avoid some disasters. If people love nothing more than life, then what can be used for survival can't be used? If people hate nothing more than death, then what can be used to avoid disaster is impossible? You can survive by some means, but some people refuse to use it; Some methods can avoid disaster, but some people refuse to adopt them. Therefore, they love something more precious than life (that is "righteousness"); What they hate is something more serious than death (that is "injustice"). Not only sages have this nature, everyone has it, but sages cannot lose it.
A bowl of rice, a bowl of soup, you can live if you eat it, or you will starve if you don't eat it. However, when passing hungry people gave it to others contemptuously and angrily, they refused to accept it. Kicking (or stepping on) others to eat, beggars are unwilling to accept it.
(But some people) accepted the generous salary of "Wanzhong" without knowing whether it was in line with etiquette. What good does such a generous salary do me? Is it because of the magnificent house, the service of wives and concubines, and the poor people I know? In the past (some people) would rather die than accept it, but now (some people) accept it for the splendor of the house; In the past (some people) would rather die than accept it, but now (some people) accept it to serve their first or second wives; In the past, (some people) would rather die than accept it, but now (some people) admire themselves for the poor people they know but accept. Can't this practice be stopped? This is called losing people's inherent sense of shame and shame.