Tony Zerio

Dr. Henry Adobor

MG 600
9/16/2010

The Parable of the Sadhu

1. What are the ethical issues of the case?

Obviously leaving a man not die raises some serious ethical issues. Happening upon a
dying stranger, how exactly can one define their responsibility to that stranger? It can be argued
that we all have a responsibility to one another so strangers should not be looked at as any less
important to us than anyone we are in fact familiar with. In practice though, is this really
possible? Hypothetically, if a man came across a stranger and also his own son, both in equal
danger, would there be any choice but to tend to his son? Probably not, but it is an interesting
issue nonetheless. How does one weigh a human life, especially that of a complete stranger?
Another interesting moral question the case brings to light is the dichotomy between our
goals and the inconvenience of time spent helping others. In this case, helping the Sadhu was
weighed against the fact it would render their expedition unfruitful. To aid the Sadhu by bringing
him down to safety would have meant giving up their goal of reaching the summit, and it is this
that eventually caused the lot of them to continue on with their trek. I believe this speaks to the
incredible power of ambition in human beings. Of course reaching the summit was extremely
important to the hikers, as many people make goals for themselves that are difficult yet
obtainable. Where the ethical issue comes into play is how can one decide that their personal
goal -even after the months, sometimes years of preparation - supersedes that of a human life?
Our goals define us in many ways and in some cases shape our entire lives. The important thing
when faced with ethical conflict such as this, however, is to maintain moral integrity and not to
get blinded by the hard work you have put in to prepare for this goal.

2. Apply each of the major ethical theories/frameworks we looked over in weeks one and two to
this case. What conclusions can you arrive at with each one?
The ethical theory of utilitarianism states that the correct moral decision in cases like this
is the decision which yields the best overall result. Through the scope of utilitarian thought, we
see the hikers decision to forge on with their trek to have a better result for more people. The
hikers were each able to reach the summit, which was incredibly important to them, while the
Sadhu was given help (minimal) but maybe survived. Group mentality can be an incredibly
powerful force in decision-making. When groups make decisions, they tend to think of
themselves as “the many” and the person in question as “the one”. In this case we know that the
needs of the many were found to outweigh the needs of the one. A fault I can see clearly with this
mode of rationalizing their decision is having the group make the decision. When a group is put
in a position to benefit themselves or one person in need of assistance, it is too easy to fall back
on utilitarian thought to justify a decision to leave a person to die.
Kantianism is an ethical theory which would have been great for these hikers to apply to
their situation with the Sadhu. When dealing in Kant’s school of thought, one finds that doing the
right thing is always necessary, no matter the consequences. Applied here, the right thing was to
bring the Sadhu to safety, even if it meant sacrificing the summit for the hikers. A “veiled
ignorance” method of making judgments would have had the hikers look at the Sadhu as one of
their own, instead of a foreign holy man about which they knew nothing about. Cold, hard reason
shows that bringing the Sadhu to safety is more important than summiting in this case. This can
be derived regardless of the sympathy - or lack thereof - felt by the hikers about their trip or
toward the Sadhu. It is a matter of goodwill, and in this case through the eyes of Kantianist
thought, leaving the Sadhu was the wrong thing to do.
Aristotle believed ethics to be derived from virtues. More specifically, it was a matter of
character. When faced with difficult ethical decisions, Aristotle believed these decisions rely on
the virtuousness of the person(s) making the decision rather than specifically “right” or “wrong”
decisions. To Aristotle, being a person of character meant doing the right thing when no one was
looking. In other words, it is useless to hold every one person to the same ethical code because
virtues are instilled in us not innately, but by our upbringing. A virtuous person would prefer to
live the right life in place of the good life, he said. In “The Parable of the Sadhu” we see a
decision made that most in our society could consider unethical, but it is a bit more complicated
than that. Since Aristotle truly believed that a person’s virtues would dictate whether their
decisions were ethically sound, and those virtues could potentially be different from one person
to the next, a blanket “they were wrong” statement can not be made here. Rather, we would have
to know each of the hikers individually and their virtues to know if their actions were morally
sound.
The final ethical theory to use to analyze this case is religion. Religions are different all
over he world in terms of their values and what is sacred. Stephen is the only person whose
religion is named in the case so for the purposes of this analysis, we can just look at him.
Quakers are known for their (relatively) strict practices and interpretation of righteousness and
things of that nature. It is no surprise then to see Stephen as the one who wrestles with the
decision to leave the Sadhu the most out of the groups mentioned. To him a life is sacred and not
to be taken lightly. To choose summiting a mountain over a person’s life is way out of line
ethically with the Quaker’s religious beliefs and obviously not a good moral decision on
Stephen’s part. We see him regretting the decision even as he joins his comrade at the summit
saying “How do you feel about contributing to the death of a fellow man?” (pg. 3). Stephen
obviously feels he made the wrong decision as he reaches the summit and his religious beliefs
are a hint to us as to why he may have thought so.

3. Did the frameworks help you resolve the ethical issues here? What other tools did you draw on
to analyze the issues in the case?
Having the frameworks as provided in class were a great tool when analyzing this case.
“The Parable of the Sadhu” is such a widely used case because of the dilemmas it brings about in
the reader and I was no different. When I first read the article, I was outraged by the thought of
hikers leaving a dying man to the elements just to reach their summit before a certain time. I
thought this to be completely out of line with my own ethical code and felt empathy for the
Sadhu. As I continued reading, however, something interesting happened. I began to think more
utilitarian, and started to see where the hikers, specifically the author Bowen McCoy were
coming from in their ultimate decision. McCoy’s description of how each hiker, from the New
Zealanders to the Japanese party, had given the Sadhu some amount of aid, I really began to feel
how this was not a simple cut and dry moral problem. To some extent, I feel as though it is very
easy for anyone to fall into the trap of thinking the next person to come along will be the one to
offer that person the aid they really need. This is another danger of group mentality - that the
next person will “take care of it”. You can have a group of well-meaning individuals, but with
each able to pass full responsibility to the next person in line, you will wind up with a net result
close to zero. As I analyzed the case, while I did empathize with the difficulty of the moral
decision that had to be made, I found myself thinking that, in their shoes, I would have forgone
the summit to help a fellow man in need.

4. What moral lessons can we learn here?

I took away a few moral lessons from the analysis of this case. Most prevalent I thought
was the danger of the group mentality. As mentioned earlier, even a group of “good” people are
capable of making some very bad ethical decisions. The reasoning behind this I believe is that
there is less accountability mainly. The hikers in this case had no strong “leader” in the sense that
someone was helping to make decisions for the group to follow. When left to their own devices
each individual acted accordingly and pushed off the task of truly helping the Sadhu to the next
one down the line as if passing off a hot potato. This demonstrates how important it is for people
to have a leader who can make those moral decisions and live with their consequences, even if it
is perceived by the group to be to their detriment.
Another lesson brought to my attention through reading the article was the importance of
having goals that you are not afraid to miss. Throughout our lives we set goals for ourselves, a
lot of time setting them higher and higher because we want to achieve some level of success. As
important as success is to the human psyche, getting there ethically is, I believe, equally
important. If the goal is to be the head of a major corporation and someone are willing to step on
anyone in their path to achieve that, I find that morally unsound and not noteworthy as an
achievement. It is no light task to accomplish our goals as ethically as possible, in many cases
more difficult. For Bowen McCoy the goal of summitting was achieved, but he forever has to
live with the question of what really happened to the Sadhu. That uncertainty alone, is why I feel
as though I could have made a different decision.