This paper is selected from Mencius' Gao Zi, and discusses an important proposition of Mencius: righteousness is more important than life. When righteousness and life cannot be balanced, we should give up our lives for righteousness. What is "righteousness"? Mencius said, "The heart of shame and evil is also right." ("Gao Zishang") and said: "Righteousness, Tao also. ..... Only a gentleman can take the right path. " (Lower Zhang Wan) Mencius thinks that he is ashamed of doing bad things, and others are tired of doing bad things. This is righteousness; Righteousness is the right path that a moral gentleman must follow. How did Mencius put forward and demonstrate his thoughts? "Fish, what I want, bear's paw, what I want; You can't have your cake and eat it. You can't have your cake and eat it. Life is what I want, and righteousness is what I want; You can't have both, and those who give up their lives are also righteous. " Mencius made an analogy with specific things familiar in people's lives: 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; I cherish life and righteousness. In the case that I can't get both at the same time, I'd rather give up my life and get the essence. Here, Mencius compared life to a fish and righteousness to a bear's paw, thinking that righteousness is more precious than life, just as bear's paw is more precious than fish, and naturally the idea of "giving up life for righteousness" came into being. This proposition is the central argument of the whole article. Why sacrifice your life for righteousness? Mencius demonstrated from three aspects. First, "life is what I want. I want more than the living, so I don't want it." Death is what I hate, too. It is more evil than the dead, so I have nothing to lose. "these arguments say: life is my treasure, but there are things more precious than life, and I can't do anything to drag out an ignoble existence; I hate death, but there is something I hate more than death (injustice), so sometimes I don't want to avoid disaster (death). This is a positive argument. Righteousness is more precious than life. When they can't have both, we should give up our lives for righteousness. Secondly, "if people want nothing from life, why not use the living if they can?" "What makes people worse than the dead, so why not avoid the patients?" These arguments say: if there is nothing that people cherish more than life, then no means can be used to save life! If there is nothing more disgusting than death, then what can be used to avoid disaster (death) cannot be done! The implication is: if this goes on, will people's behavior become omnipotent and despicable? This is a negative argument that righteousness is more important than life, and when you can't have both, you should give up your life for righteousness. Third, "born with it, born without it, born with it, born without it." 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. Not only the sages have a heart, everyone has a heart, and the sages must not lose their ears. "These arguments say that you can save lives by such means (referring to improper means), but some people are unwilling to adopt them; In this way, disaster (death) can be avoided, but some people are unwilling to do so. Therefore, there are things that people value more than life (meaning righteousness) and things that people hate more than death (meaning injustice); This loyalty is not unique to sages, but everyone has it, but sages have not lost it. This is an objective fact that justice is more precious than life, and some people give up their lives for justice when they can't have it both ways. Through the above argument, the central argument put forward at the beginning of the article is established. However, the above argument is only reasonable. In order to make this truth more convincing and more acceptable, Mencius went on to illustrate it with specific examples. " One dish and one bean soup, if you get it, you will live, if you get it, you will die. Call it, and the people in the street will be blessed; It was a slap in the face, and people dismissed it. "Baskets are round bamboo baskets used for rice in ancient times, and beans are utensils for meat or other food in ancient times. Hu Er is shouting loudly, and Chu Er is kicking. These words say: as long as you get a small basket of rice and a small bowl of soup, you can save your life. If you don't get it, you will starve to death. If you shout contemptuously for someone else to eat, even hungry passers-by will not accept it. If you give someone a kick, even beggars will disdain it. There is a story similar to this in the Book of Rites Tan Gong: "Qi is hungry, eating is the way, and eating is hunger. "If you are hungry, please make a collection, and the transaction will come rashly. Qian Ao ate on the left and drank on the right, saying,' Hey! Come and eat! Raise your eyes, look at it and say,' I don't eat my food, so so do I! So thank you for dying without food. "It can be seen that this passage written by Mencius is well-founded." Evil is worse than death ",and it is more disgusting to endure other people's insults in person than to die, so I would rather starve to death than accept other people's insults and alms. Even unknown passers-by and poor beggars can do this, let alone ordinary people. This case vividly shows that people value righteousness more than life, and when they can't have both, they will give up their lives for righteousness. In Mencius' view, "people are not sages, to err is human", and everyone has this kind of heavy meaning. When you can't have it both ways, you should sacrifice your life for justice. However, in real life, this is not always the case. Some people can refuse insulting alms in poverty and crisis, but forget the benefits in a peaceful and peaceful environment. How to explain this phenomenon? The third paragraph of the article analyzes this problem. Mencius pointed out that there are indeed people in the society who don't argue about propriety and righteousness for ten thousand minutes. "Bell" is an ancient unit of measurement, with six hooves and four fights as one bell, and "Wan Ling" refers to generous salary. Why did someone accept the salary of 10 thousand bells without asking whether it was polite or not? What are the benefits of a salary of 10,000 bells for yourself? "For the beauty of the palace and the service of wives, can the poor get me and you? "Is it because the gorgeous housing, the service of wives and concubines, gave the benefits of poor friends, and they realized that they were grateful? Gorgeous housing, the service of wives and concubines, and the gratitude of friends are all external things, which are insignificant compared with life. Those who "spend ten thousand minutes not arguing about propriety and righteousness" would rather starve to death than be insulted at first, but now they don't care about shame about these external things. What is the reason? " This is called losing your heart. " Mencius believed that this kind of person had the heart to sacrifice his life for righteousness, but later he lost it because of greed for profit. Mencius warned: "Yes or no? "Isn't it enough that this kind of" no dispute "is lost? Zhu said in the Notes to the Four Books: "The heart of shame and evil in this chapter is inherent in people. Or you can be born in a crisis and can't help but plan a feast. A gentleman can't be absent-minded for a moment. " This statement is very reasonable. Some people would rather die than surrender at the critical juncture of national survival and the success or failure of the revolution, but when the revolution is successful and the world is at peace, they pursue fame and fortune by hook or by crook, and even violate the law and discipline to seek personal gain for their relatives and friends. Isn't this "for the beauty of the palace, the battle of wives and concubines, the poor people get me"? They really lost their original position and morality. Therefore, Mencius' accusation of "accepting it for ten thousand minutes without arguing" is not only an exposure and criticism of the dark politics and corrupt officials at that time, but also a reminder to future generations to be vigilant and reflect on themselves at all times and not to do impolite things for the sake of nobles. But Mencius said, "People who are not independent have a heart, and everyone has it." He believes that everyone is born with kindness such as benevolence, righteousness, courtesy and wisdom, and those who "accept the gift for ten thousand minutes" later "lose their sincerity". This explanation does not emphasize the influence of acquired education and social environment on people, which is a manifestation of his idealism. Mencius himself was a rather arrogant man, who refused to accommodate and curry favor with power. He said: "Richness and wealth can't be lewd, poverty and lowliness can't be moved, and powerful people can't be bent. This is called a gentleman. " Mencius (under Teng Wengong) was a visiting minister of Qi. Later, because of disagreement with the king of Qi, he decided to resign from Qi and go home. The King of Qi asked someone to keep Mencius on condition that he was prepared to build a house in the center of the capital and give Mencius 10,000 grain as his disciple's living expenses. As a result, Mencius sternly refused. (See "Under the Ugly Sun") It can be seen that Mencius said in this article that "10,000 minutes without arguing about propriety and righteousness will be of no help to me", which shows Mencius' integrity and spirit. In this article, Mencius praised the spirit of sacrificing one's life for righteousness, and criticized "10,000 minutes without arguing about propriety and righteousness", which had a good influence on later generations. In history, many people with lofty ideals took "sacrifice their lives for righteousness" as the code of conduct and "wealth and not prostitution" as the moral norm, which made contributions to the country and the nation. Wen Tianxiang, a national hero in the Southern Song Dynasty, said in the poem "Crossing the Zero and Ding Yang": "No one has died since ancient times, so we should learn from our hearts and take a look at history." Xia, a modern proletarian revolutionary martyr, said in the poem of righteousness: "It doesn't matter if you behead, as long as the doctrine is true." This is in line with the spirit of "giving up one's life for righteousness". From the literary point of view, the prose of Mencius is magnificent, emotional and lively, which fully embodies Mencius' upright personality and shows Mencius' eloquence. He likes to use rhetorical devices of parallelism, such as: "hometown is not subject to physical death, but now it is a beautiful palace;" Hometown is not subject to physical death, and now it is regarded as a wife and concubine; I don't want to die in my hometown, but now I want to do it for the poor and those in need. "Originally, this sentence could be finished in one sentence, that is,' My hometown died for my body, and I am doing it now for the beauty of the palace, for the service of wives and concubines, and for those who need me to know the poor and love the rich. "But he deliberately divided into three sentences, strengthened the momentum and feelings, and showed the speaker's righteous words. Secondly, in order to make the truth simple, vivid and interesting, Mencius likes to use metaphors. This article regards concrete fish and bear's paw as abstract metaphors of life and justice, and "replacing fish with bear's paw" as a clever metaphor of "giving up life for righteousness" is a very famous example. Secondly, this paper also uses a lot of contrast techniques, such as comparing fish with bear's paw, comparing righteousness with life, comparing people who value righteousness over today's behavior, so as to compare beggars, passers-by, and "10,000 minutes without arguing about propriety and righteousness". The reasons are clearer and more impressive, which strengthens the persuasiveness of the article.