Mencius believed that "the heart that is ashamed of evil is also righteous", and righteousness is more important than life. When righteousness and life cannot be both satisfactory, we should give up life for righteousness.
Master Mencius first compared the familiar concrete things in people's lives-fish and bear's paw, which led to the proposition of "giving up life for righteousness": fish is what I want, and bear's paw is what I want. I'd rather give up fish than bear's paw if I can't get both at the same time. Life is what I cherish, and righteousness is what I cherish. In the case that I can't get both at the same time, I'd rather give up my life and get the essence. Mencius compared life to fish and righteousness to bear's paw, and thought that righteousness was more precious than life just as bear's paw was more precious than fish. In this way, through "comparison" and "prosperity", the central argument of this full text is "sacrifice one's life for righteousness"
why "sacrifice one's life for righteousness"? Mencius demonstrated it from three aspects.
First, in the eyes of virtuous people, I cherish life, but I cherish it more than life, so I can't drag out an ignoble existence. I hate death, but there is something I hate more than death (referring to injustice), so sometimes I don't want to avoid the disaster (death). That is:
(love) righteousness > (love) life, so take righteousness
give up life
(hate) injustice > (hate) death, so take death
This is a positive argument that righteousness is more precious than life, and when they can't have both, they should give up life to take righteousness.
second, in the eyes of people with bad morals, if there is nothing more cherished than life, then what means can be used to save life can't be used? If there is nothing that people hate more than death, then what can be done to avoid disaster (death)? Namely:
(cherish) life > (cherish) others, so take life
(dislike) death > (dislike) injustice, so take injustice
Mencius makes a negative argument from the perspective of people with low moral character, which should be spurned, which proves from the opposite side that righteousness is more precious than life.
Third, it is argued from objective facts that righteousness is more precious than life. When you can't have both, you should give up life for righteousness.
Mencius said that life can be saved by such means (referring to improper means), but some people are unwilling to adopt them; In this way (referring to improper methods), disaster (death) can be avoided, while some people are unwilling to do it. Therefore, there are things that people cherish more than life (meaning righteousness), and things that people hate more than death (meaning injustice); It is not only wise people who have this kind of loyalty, but everyone has it. It is just that wise people have not lost and become wise, and people with low moral character have lost and become humble people.
By contrast, the above argument clearly analyzes an abstruse and abstract truth, and demonstrates it carefully and thoroughly, so that we can appreciate Mencius' talent for words and exquisite style of logical reasoning; Let us feel that high moral character is an example for us to learn, and we should strive to be people with high moral character ―― sacrifice one's life for righteousness.
The discussion is not over, and Mencius then uses concrete examples to demonstrate the proposition of "sacrificing life for righteousness".
Although "Huer's food" and "Chuer's food" can save lives, hungry passers-by are unwilling to accept it, even beggars are dismissive. This is because "passers-by" and "beggars" are more evil than the dead, that is, it is more disgusting to bear the insults of others in person than to die, so they would rather starve to death than accept insulting alms from others. This case vividly shows that people value righteousness more than life.
In order to make a thorough argument, this paper makes a supplementary discussion on the phenomenon that "1, minutes will be accepted without distinguishing etiquette and meaning". Why does this phenomenon exist? Mencius pointed out that these are secondary compared with "life" and "righteousness", and thought that "this is called losing one's true heart", that is, this kind of person originally had the heart of sacrificing one's life for righteousness, and it was not surprising that he lost his human nature because of greed for temporary benefits, so Mencius finally warned that this shameful thing of "accepting without distinguishing etiquette and righteousness" should stop! The implication is that "losing one's true heart" will be spurned by others, and it will become a "villain" and will be remembered forever. Is it worth it?
through the above argument, the central argument of "sacrificing one's life for righteousness" is established.
"Fish Want What I Want" is a well-written argumentative paper, which is full of momentum, strong feelings, lively and lively. Read carefully, it really makes people feel that the discussion is exquisite and smooth.
gu mingfu, a teacher, lives in dangtu, Anhui province.