The Parable of the Sadhu Essay

The Parable of the Sadhu is a case about a multicultural group of climbers who when faced with
a moral dilemma, fail to adequately address and analyze it as such. The group had a myopic vision
involving their goal of reaching the end of their journey which led them to morally disengage and
rationalize rather than analyze if their actions truly aligned with their own moral values. The decision
to pursue the collective goal of the group likely comes at the expense of the life of a Sadhu they
stumble upon during their long and grueling journey. Leaving a man to die in pursuit of traversing
mountainous trails for a challenge is something that most would find morally abhorrent.
The climbers as a group were morally responsible for the fate of the Sadhu as their actions met
the three criteria (causality, knowledge, and freedom) of moral responsibility. They could have
prevented the likely demise of the Sadhu but failed to do so. They knew that leaving the Sadhu would
likely result in his untimely death and they chose this action of free will. While the group was
psychologically impaired, they were not at the point in which they were not able to reasonably control
their actions. It could be argued that Stephen did not meet the causality and freedom criteria within the
group context. If he acted alone and attempted to bring the Sadhu alone he may have perished along
with the Sadhu. The decision of the group was to continue on. He was overruled; however, he did have
free will to act in the manner he knew was morally just. Interestingly, as individuals, none of them
would have individually met the criteria of moral responsibility as the causality element would not
have been present since they would not have reasonably been able to take action alone. When a group
can be held morally responsible although individually its members cannot, moral responsibility is
present. To what extent and to what degree responsibility is distributed depends on the mitigating
factors of the situation.
The legalities of the situation should have been considered and not just that of local law. They
should have considered the laws in their own countries and why they are laws in the first place. The
different cultures of the members of the group do play into the ethics of how the Sadhu is treated
because it is an element of the mitigating factors. This was a diverse group of people with varying
beliefs and no clear leader to unify them. They were not a well organized, unified, homogenous group.
These mitigating factors further reduce the distribution of collective moral responsibility.
Often times we neglect to realize that most of our life is about the journey, and the destination is
simply where we end up as a result of that journey. It is the journey that makes life worth living and is
the measure of ones true character. Instead of speeding through the path of life to an unknown
destination, we would be wise to slow down and enjoy the ride and take time to align our actions with
our moral principles. This mindset resonates when McCoy mentions that the highlight of climbing trips
for both Stephen and himself was unrelated to climbing: Stephen's was a spiritual experience where he
was invited to a funeral ceremony and McCoy's was that of hospitality and compassion as he recovered
from altitude sickness over the course of five days.
If the Sadhu had been someone more closely related to the societies of its members, the hiking
party would have, in all likelihood, made a different decision. It may have been enough to snap them
out of their tunnel vision and allow them to realize they were facing a moral issue. Instead of failing to
adequately address the situation, this frame may have helped them to engage in an ethical analysis to
consider if their course of action was also complying with their own moral standards. Had it been a
fellow countryman that they stumbled upon, the potential social ramifications of failing to act also
would have been much greater. If word got out that they had left a fellow countryman to die, what
would society think of them? If it had happened to be a beautiful European women in this plight, would
they have all suddenly become virtuous? Unfortunately, people often avoid having an honest moral
dialogue with themselves when it is not convenient or beneficial to do so. This is especially true when

one perceives there will be no or minimal social repercussions for their actions. When there are no
consequences for actions viewed as immoral other than those self-imposed, one needs to have a strong
enough moral will power to avoid acting in ways that sabotage the individual's moral principles. Often
times this self-sabotage goes unnoticed because the offender does not recognize it as occurring. Other
times a deliberate attempt to sabotage ones moral principles occurs in an effort to re-frame the situation
so as to justify ones actions. People routinely rationalize their actions in an attempt to find an angle
which they deem sufficient to justify their actions.
The fact that the Sadhu may have been on a spiritual pilgrimage should not have impacted the
group's decision as this was not a certainty but merely speculation. The Sadhu could also have been
jumped and robbed. After he was clothed and fed and of sound enough mind, the Sadhu was able to
throw rocks at a dog that frightened him. The Sadhu was in a sufficient condition where he could have
refused assistance in a way that would be clear even in the presence of a language barrier. Assisting the
Sadhu, along with the large number of other mitigating factors present, allowed them to rationalize that
they did what they could and should do; and, thus, they felt relieved of their moral responsibility.
There is a collective or institutional ethic that applies beyond that of the individual. In society
we routinely place moral blame on both groups and individuals. Greater moral responsibility innately
increases with knowledge, power, ability, and influence as the threshold of moral responsibility is
inversely correlated to these factors. Essentially, a group can accomplish what individuals cannot and
so they should be held to a higher moral standard. The real difficulty comes in dealing with the
exponential increase in mitigating factors involved in a collective and how moral blame is distributed.
The more variables involved, the more difficult it becomes to determine. While we are able to establish
moral responsibility, the degree to which they can be held responsible is another matter.