What moral do you take away from this story?

Right up until the end I'd say it's a good illustration of the hedonic treadmill.

But I'm really not sure what to make of the ending.

> "Oh," he said, "she wants to become like God."

> "Go home. She is sitting in her filthy shack again."

This is ambiguous. The flounder simply acknowledges a change in state without saying whether he actually fulfilled the request or not.

If he rejected the request, then it's a tale about checking ambition, trying to be like God, etc.

But if he accepted the request? Then it's advancing a very different idea of what God is like.

I wonder if the original German is equally ambiguous...

EDIT: I suppose she's not making the sun and moon rise, so maybe I'm overcomplicating it.

Some people are greedy and don't know when to stop when they have enough. The fisherman is notably not one of those people.

Older generations might have been most offended by the "becoming like God" part. The enchanted fish was willing to grant any wish that is in principle achievable by a human being, even the most ridiculous wish of becoming Pope.

But the moment the wish transcends that human realm it is turned down and punished.

I guess the theme of "becoming like God" resonates with the story from Adam and Eve's fall.

That no matter how good your current dwelling is, your wife will always want upgrades.

Unbounded greed will prevent you from enjoying the benefits of your life.

Don't go above INT_MAX or you'll overflow back to -2147483648

I think the point is that when one believes that having their desires fulfilled will bring them happiness, or an end to desire itsself, that the material circumstances in which that person lives are completely irrelevant. In the case of the wife, the suffering she experiences from not having her desires fulfilled is the same whether she is living in a filthy shack or whether she is god. Her internal state is identical in both situations, so her becoming god and her becoming a poor fisherman's wife are exactly the same from a phenomonological perspective. The same could be said for the man. His satisfaction was the same whether he was living in the shack or the palace. What changed for him was the burden of having these material things and asking for more, knowing it wouldn't ultimately make him or his wife happy.

Or it could mean that due to the transient nature of all material things, anything gained will invariably break down eventually. All desire leads to loss.

Maybe it's both. I think it's both.

If you give in to an unreasonable person's demands, that person will demand more and more until it all comes crashing down.

I read it as the fish returning her to her God-ordained state, as she was, from her magical-fish-given states of human appointed positions; that is, wealth and status coming from community rather than any kind of divine appointment—which is maybe also a Protestant dig at Papism?

There's a few potential pretty reasonable morals to draw from it that apply at the individual and various group levels.

The more jaded you are the less of them you'll reject but also the less of them you needed to be told.

If you get into options trading, make sure to have a hard stopping point.

I think the "straussian" reading is it's the husbands fault. He knows he's doing the wrong thing but he can't say no.

1) Listen to your conscience & speak up unambiguously

2) Something like "Victim blaming is correct in moderation"?

I don't know if I agree with that but it seems like an interpertation

Don't get married.

being a deity is a crap job, aim for Pope.

Am I the only one to read it as the fact that God is supposed to be humble, so that's why when she asks to be like God she's back to the shackle?