If you were driving down the road and came to an intersection with a homeless individual standing at the corner holding a sign that reads “need spare change,” would you give them spare change if you had some? Why is it that not everyone would? I bring this up because “The parable of the sadhu” is a classic dilemma of individuals having different views, thoughts and beliefs of how one should act in a particular situation. In this case, the dilemma is what some individuals trying to accomplish a lifelong mountain climbing goal should do with a Sadhu man who was found unconscious in the mountains. Just as some would offer change to the homeless person and some would not, these individuals also had different thoughts on what should be done with the Sadhu.
As with any dilemma, there are always stakeholders who will be affected differently by the decision made. First, Stephen, a highly moral man believes the sadhu should be helped at all cause and the group should not move forward until they know the Sadhu is safe. Then there is the Sherpa, Pasang, whose main purpose is to keep his mountain climbers safe and assist them in accomplishing their goals of making it up the mountain. Finally, there is the Sadhu, whose life may ultimately be saved or loss depending on the decision made. The case also mentions other groups from different areas of the world that also came in contact with the sadhu and was faced with the same dilemma. Do our decisions impact them, even though we aren’t truly climbing the mountain as one group? With Pasang recommending we move forward without the sadhu, and Stephen demanding we help the sadhu to safety, it was my decision that made the differences. My name is Buzz McCoy, and it is this decision that has me going back to the situation to evaluate it more closely.
II. Key Issues
• Whose responsibility is it to help the sadhu? Is it anyone’s responsibility?
• Is saving the sadhu’s life or...