The reason why the metaphor of fish and bear paws is used is because fish and bear paws are totems.

If you can’t get both fish and bear paws, choose the more delicious and expensive bear paws. If you cannot have both life and righteousness, choose the more important righteousness. Bear's paw is better than fish, so take bear's paw, and righteousness is more important than life, so take life.

If a person’s current position is taken as the origin, walking to the left is likened to a fish, and walking to the right is likened to a bear’s paw, then it is impossible for a person to walk 100 meters to the left at the same time. Go right or vice versa. In this case, as a complete human being, you cannot have both your fish and your cake and eat it too.

"What I Want to Be a Fish":

The article "What I Want to Be a Fish" uses the choice between fish and bear's paw as a metaphor for facing the choice between life and righteousness. Mencius would resolutely "sacrifice his life for righteousness". The "righteousness" in this and the "original heart" at the end of the article "this is called losing one's original intention" both refer to people's "heart of shame" (according to today's popular understanding, it can be understood as "heart of shame") .

Because only when people have a "heart of shame" can they distinguish what can be tolerated by the moral bottom line, what is not acceptable within the moral scope, and what is "what one wants more than life" , Only in this way can we not be seduced by the "beauty of the palace", "the support of wives and concubines" and "the poor people I know can get me", but like those who "do not eat the food they complain about", have an awe-inspiring "righteousness" in their hearts.