Translation: (But there are those) who see a generous salary and accept it without recognizing whether it is in accordance with propriety or not. In this way, what good is a generous salary to me?
The original text of "The Fish I Desire"
The fish I desire; the bear's paw I also desire. I can't have both. I'll give up the fish and take the bear's paw. I want to live, I also want; righteousness, I also want. If I cannot have both, I will give up life for righteousness. Life is also what I desire, and what I desire is more than life, so I don't want to get it; death is also what I hate, and what I hate is more than the dead, so I suffer from what I don't want to get.
If one's desire is greater than life, then why not use whatever one can get? The most important thing to remember is that there is no one who is more evil than the dead, so why not use them to avoid the dead? From this is the birth and there is no use, from this is to avoid suffering and there is not to do. Therefore, the desire is more than the living, the evil is more than the dead. Not only is the heart of the sage, but also all people have, the sage can not lose ear.
It's a little bit of food, a little bit of soup, if you get it, you will live, if you don't get it, you will die. The people who call for it are those who do not accept it; the people who cuir and with it are those who beg for it and do not care about it. Ten thousand bells is not defense of propriety and righteousness and accepted, ten thousand bells in my how to add! For the beauty of the palace, the worship of concubines, the knowledge of the poor and needy get me? This is what is meant by losing one's original mind.
Translation
Fish is what I want, and bear's paw is what I want, and if these two things cannot be obtained at the same time, then I would rather give up the fish and choose the bear's paw. Life is what I want, and justice is what I want, and if these two things can't be obtained at the same time, then I'd rather sacrifice my life and choose righteousness. Life is what I want, but there is something more than life that I want, so I do not do what I want; death is what I detest, but there is something more than death that I detest, so there are calamities that I do not avoid.
If there is nothing that men desire more than life, what means are not available to them wherever all means of preserving life are available? If there is nothing that people detest more than death, then what bad thing can be used to avoid calamity that cannot be done? By some means one can live, but some refuse to use it; by some means one can escape from calamity, but some refuse to use it.
Thus they love what is more precious than life (that is, "righteousness"), and they hate what is more serious than death (that is, "unrighteousness"). Not only do the sages have this kind of thinking, but everyone has it, only the sages are able not to lose it.
A bowl of rice, a bowl of soup, if you eat it, you will live; if you don't eat it, you will starve to death. But if you scold and give it to others to eat, the hungry people passing by will not accept it; if you kick and give it to others to eat, the beggars will not accept it. （Even beggars are unwilling to accept it. (But some people) accept generous salaries without recognizing whether they are in accordance with propriety and righteousness. In this case, what good does a generous salary do me? Is it for the splendor of my dwelling place, for the service of my concubines, and for the gratitude of the poor whom I know well?
Once upon a time (someone) who (preferred) to die for the sake of (morality) (would not) accept (the alms of others), now (someone) accepts it for the sake of the splendor of his dwelling; once upon a time (someone) who (preferred) to die for the sake of (morality) (would not) accept (the alms of others), now (someone) accepts it for the sake of the service of his wife and concubines; once upon a time (someone) who (preferred) to die for the sake of (morality) (would not) accept ( alms from others), but now (someone) accepts it in order that the poor and needy whom he knows may be grateful for their kindness.
Cannot this (behavior) be stopped? This is called the loss of human nature (meaning the heart of shame and dishonor).
Expanded Information
Background of Composition
"What I Desire in Fish" is from "Mengzi (孟子-告子上)", which was compiled by Meng Zi (孟子-告子), a scholar of the Warring States period. The Fish I Desire is a masterpiece of Mencius' in-depth discussion of the human concept of life and death, based on his theory of the goodness of nature.
Emphasizing that "justice" is more important than "life", he advocates sacrificing one's life for righteousness. Mencius was a good natured man, and believed that "all men have a sense of shame and evil", and that people should keep their good nature, strengthen their cultivation and education, and refrain from doing anything contrary to etiquette. Mencius on this idea, that is the essence of the traditional moral cultivation of the Chinese people, far-reaching things.
Guizi is a chapter in the book of Mencius, divided into two chapters, the upper and the lower. Both Mencius and Suzi were born during the Warring States period. Mencius held the theory of sexual goodness (that all human beings are born with the power to do good), while Suzi held the theory of neither good nor evil (i.e., there is no such thing as good or evil in life), and the "Guozi" begins with a debate between the two men, focusing on Mencius's theories about human nature, morality, and their related theories.
The seven books of Mencius are a compilation of Mencius' remarks during the Warring States period, recording his debates with other schools of thought, his teaching of his disciples, and his travels to the vassals, etc. They were compiled by Mencius and his disciples (Wan Zhang, etc.)**** together.
Mengzi records Mengzi's ideas of governance, political views (benevolent rule, the king and the hegemony, the principle of the people, the non-conformity of the king's heart, the people being the most important, the altars of the earth and grain being second to the king being the least important) and political actions, and was written around the middle of the Warring States period, belonging to the Confucian classics. The starting point of its doctrine is the theory of the goodness of nature, which advocates the rule of virtue. In the Southern Song Dynasty, Zhu Xi combined the Mencius with the Analects, the University, and the Meanwhile to form the Four Books. Since the Song, Yuan, Ming, and Qing dynasties, it has been regarded as a book that has been passed down from family to family.
Character Background
Meng Zi (ca. 372 BC-289 BC), surnamed Ji, Meng, name Ke, name Zi Hui, was a native of Zou (present-day Zoucheng, Jining, Shandong) during the Warring States period. During the Warring States period, he was a famous philosopher, thinker, statesman, educator, and one of the representatives of the Confucian school.
Guizi was a thinker and legalist figure during the Warring States period of the Eastern Zhou Dynasty, who was taught by Mozi, was eloquent, and spoke of benevolence and righteousness. Since Mencius had several debates with him on the issue of human nature, only a fragment of his doctrine is recorded in Mencius -Guizi.
Guizi belonged to the Taoist thinkers of the Warring States period in China. He was a Taoist-based philosopher compatible with Confucianism and Taoism. His name is not known, but he is said to have been named Bu Hai (不害). About a bachelor who traveled to Jixi. He later discussed human nature with Meng Ke. His remarks are found in the article "Mengzi - Suzi". Since Mencius' ideas were fundamentally opposed to his, the account in Mencius is not entirely credible, and since there are no writings by Gouzi, his true ideas are no longer available.