"Yi" v.s. "Li"

Question: Will you do a thing because you are ought to do so? Or will you do it because you are to gain something from it?

According to the Analects: "The superior man comprehends yi (righteousness); the inferior man comprehends li (profit)" (Analects, IV, i6).

After brushing my fingertips to my book of Fung Yu-Lan, hoping that I would somehow came up of something worthy of discussing for; I finally, I mean "randomly" came up with the thing of the distinction between Yi and Li; righteousness and profit.

RIGHTEOUSNESS then, according to the book, refers to the "oughtness" of a situation or scenario. While PROFIT, refers to the benefit one will have if he/she is to do a certain thing.

Given here is a situation: You are walking by on a street, let's say, in your way to school. Suddenly, there came a stranger, a man of, let us say, luxury and wealth for example, who by then dropped his wallet. Assumed that he was not aware of such happening, you picked it up and saw a lot of money inside it. Now, you returned it, yes, but, is it because you think it was the right thing to do? or because you expect something in return, maybe of a money reward or maybe a blessing from God to compensate such decent act of yours? Now obviously, the first one refers to Yi (righteousness), while the latter is to Li (profit). Yes, what you did is good, but, is it righteous? or for the sake of self-proceeds? Good, in the sense that you returned it without filching the money inside, but again, is it righteous or for the sake of profit making?

To end this, I would like to share what happened next: After reading my book, I suddenly picked up a piece of paper inside my pocket. I crumpled it and decided to slide it under a table. But actually, what I did with the paper is that I slid it inside my book, and made from it a bookmark. Do you think I did it because to just slip it inside the table was not the right thing to do? Or did I do it for my own good which is to have a bookmark? Well, are these two, Yi and Li, really antithetical to each other that the presence of one cancels out the other?

Coincidence, isn't it?