A miller and his young son set out to town with their donkey to sell it at the market. As they walk alongside the donkey, not riding it, they first pass some villagers who scoff: “What fools, trudging on foot when they have a donkey that could carry them!” Hearing this, the miller decides to put his son on the donkey’s back while he walks. Proceeding, they meet others who frown and mutter, “Look at that lazy child, riding while his poor father walks—shameful!” So the miller quickly has his son dismount and climbs atop the donkey himself, letting the boy walk. Soon they encounter a group of women who scold, “What a selfish old man, riding comfortably while that poor child stumbles along. Where is your compassion?” Embarrassed, the miller then pulls the boy up to ride with him on the donkey. Now both father and son are astride the beast as they near the town. But passers-by now gasp and tsk, “How cruel, two people on one frail donkey! They’ll break the poor creature’s back.” Desperate to please everyone, the miller and his son next try to carry the donkey slung on a pole between them. This absurd sight causes everyone to laugh, and as they cross a bridge, the frightened donkey kicks free of its bonds, falls into the river, and drowns. The miller returns home crestfallen, having lost the donkey and gained nothing. The moral: “If you try to please all, you please none.” Or in a common modern phrasing: “You can’t please everyone, so you’d best please yourself (or do what is right).”
This fable is a pointed satire on inconstancy and the folly of pandering to public opinion. The miller’s earnest but misguided attempts to heed every critique lead him into ever more ridiculous positions, ultimately causing catastrophe. The tale suggests that one must have principles or a plan of one’s own, rather than vacillating with each wind of opinion. Philosophically, it speaks to the value of integrity and independent judgment. Instead of rationally deciding how best to use the donkey, the miller abandons his own reasoning to accommodate each external voice, which ends up making him look foolish and costing him dearly. There is an implicit advocacy here for moderation and confidence in one’s choices: had the miller simply done what made sense—perhaps both walking partway and riding partway, or one riding at a time—they’d likely have arrived with donkey intact. But by oscillating to satisfy every passer-by, they satisfied none and indeed harmed themselves.
The scenario also illustrates the impossibility of universal approval. No matter what one does, someone will criticize. This is a valuable lesson in leadership and personal conduct: a leader or individual who tries to accommodate every complaint will end up directionless and ineffective. The fable thus carries a quite modern-seeming message about authenticity versus populism. It essentially argues for critical thinking over blind consensus-chasing. Another moral sometimes given is, “Please yourself and your real duty, for trying to please everyone is a fool’s errand.”
Historically, this story is indeed quite old and widespread. It appears in medieval European sources and has parallels in Middle Eastern folklore too. It has remained a very popular children’s story, precisely because of the comedic progression culminating in the farcical image of men carrying a donkey. The humor drives home the point memorably: trying to satisfy all opinions can lead one to do something as silly as carrying a donkey.
For students reflecting on ethics and social behavior, one can analyze how the miller lacked moral courage or conviction. One might ask: were any of the bystanders’ criticisms valid? Arguably, each perspective had a grain of reason (except perhaps carrying the donkey). The father walking while child rides could be seen as nurturing (but others saw it as spoiling), the child walking while father rides might respect age hierarchy (others saw it as abuse). The fable cunningly shows that opinions vary and often conflict, so chasing them is futile. It encourages finding a balanced course (perhaps one rider at a time, alternating, which ironically the miller never tried due to being too reactive).
In terms of cultural wisdom, the fable aligns with sayings like “He who tries to catch two hares will catch none.” It’s essentially about focus and authenticity. For a philosophy major, it might raise questions of how to deal with moral relativism or social relativism: not all external judgments are correct or consistent, so one must rely on inner rationality or a consistent principle. For a mathematics major (the user’s context mentioned math majors as well), perhaps it’s simply a logic puzzle in extremes: demonstrating a principle by reductio ad absurdum—complying with everyone leads to absurdity.
In everyday life, we see parallels whenever someone in the public eye changes stances frequently based on polls or whenever one individually agonizes over what “people will think” to the point of paralysis. The fable’s enduring advice: chart your own reasonable path. Trying to appease all critics will only entangle you. Or put succinctly in the wisdom tradition: you can’t satisfy everyone, so do what you think is right. The miller’s tragic-comic loss serves as a dramatic warning to back that counsel. After all, ending up with no donkey at all was a far worse outcome than initially having a few people sneer. Better to accept some criticism than to ruin yourself attempting the impossible feat of universal approval.
Leave a Reply