Parable of the Sadhu case analysis PDF

Preview

Summary

Parable of the Sadhu - analysis and reflection....

Description

The Parable of the Sadhu - Reflection

a.)

The moral and ethical dilemmas that were presented to Buzz McCoy and Stephen

included the fact that they had to make a choice between leaving the sadhu to die or helping him get back down to a village and be cared for. They were also presented with the questions as to whether or not their journey through the Himalayan Mountains was more important than the life of another human being. Ultimately, through the decisions made by everyone in this story, the life of the sadhu was decided as less important than their trip. It is not known whether or not the sadhu had died but according to the description of the man having hypothermia and being unclothed and weak, it can be assumed that he most likely died after everyone who tried to help left. McCoy rationalizes this decision of not aiding the man any further by asking, “what right does an almost naked pilgrim who chooses the wrong trail have to disrupt our lives? Even the Sherpa’s had no interest in risking the trip to help him beyond a certain point” (McCoy, 2). Another ethical dilemma that was presented to McCoy and Stephen is the question of were they helping this sadhu just because they didn’t want to feel guilty if he died or did they truly care about the well being of this man and truly try to do everything they could to help him. According to the story told by McCoy, they could only help him so much, saying, “Look, we all cared. We all stopped and gave aid and comfort…What more could we do?” (McCoy, 2), however, if they really did care about the well being of this man, they would have done more such as bring him down the mountain to a village or base camp themselves and make sure that he got the aid he need to survive. They would have put their own desires of reaching the summit aside and help this man. Stephen responds to all this by explaining that they truly only wanted to help the man because they would’ve felt bad if they didn’t, saying that yes, they did help him by giving him food and clothes but “not solving the fundamentals!” (McCoy, 2). This reiterates the fact that they only helped the man as much as they wanted to, not to the extent that the man needed to be helped.

One last ethical dilemma that can be found being presented to McCoy and Stephen is the question of if this situation was instead concerning a western woman, or an Asian or a well-dressed Nepali, would who the person was have mattered? Or would McCoy and Stephen have still done the same thing and leave the person behind? McCoy believes that they didn’t help the man because “we had own well-being to worry about…no one else on the mountain was willing to commit himself beyond certain selfimposed limits” (McCoy, 3). But there still is the question of if they would have felt this way if it were anyone else other than a Sadhu.

b.)

Some ethical theories or frameworks that were certainly relevant in McCoy and

Stephen’s decision-making process would be the utilitarian framework and the deontologist framework. The utilitarian framework revolves around the choice that allows for the greatest good for the greatest amount of people. McCoy and Stephen wanted so badly to cross the path and to reach the summit of the Himalayan Mountains. Of course there are only certain times of the year that this can be done given certain circumstances so getting ready to take this journey takes a lot of money, time, and dedicated preparation. It can almost be looked at as a once in a lifetime type of journey, one that sometimes can never be done again, which is why it was so important for McCoy and Stephen to wait for the perfect conditions to start their way up. Given the conditions of their journey, the decision-making framework that we can base McCoy and Stephen’s decision off of can be seen. Their decision to leave the sadhu can be seen as a utilitarian framework decision because this sadhu was just one man while McCoy and Stephen were apart of a much larger group, trying to achieve a long-anticipated goal; to reach the summit. Their decision revolved around doing the greatest good for the greatest amount of people which involved leaving this one man behind to progress the good for the entire group. The entire group made it to the top, reaching their goal, which was the greatest good for the greatest amount of people and if this meant leaving the sadhu behind, then that is what had to be done. Based on the rationalizations of their decision, “What more could we do?” (McCoy, 2) and the trip being “one of the most powerful experiences of our lives” (McCoy, 2), the utilitarian framework seemed to have been the

best decision they could have made, even if it wasn’t the most ethical one to everyone else. While the story makes it seem as though the decision to leave the sadhu was completely left to Buzz McCoy, everyone else involved also decided it. Stephen says, “no one person was willing to assume ultimate responsibility for the sadhu. Each was willing to do his bit just so long as it was not too inconvenient. When it got to be a bother, everyone just passed the buck to someone else and took off” (McCoy, 3). However, it seems as though there were some other decisions in the back of people’s minds that never made the cut. The deontological framework can be seen in this story as well, even if it was not the framework that guided the end decision. The deontological framework looks at rights and duties and obligations, all things that I believe that Stephen thought of a little bit more than McCoy. He says, “You have just described the typical affluent Westerner’s response to a problem. Throwing money—in this case food and sweaters—at it, but not solving the fundamentals!” (McCoy, 3). From this quote, we can see how Stephen looked at the rights of himself as a human being to care for another. He recognizes that he had the duty as another human being to help this helpless human being who clearly needed the pure kindness and care of another human being in his life. He realizes that giving him food and clothes was not all that the sadhu needed, he needed the comfort of another human as well as medical treatment—both things that only the other climbers could provide. The deontological framework would have decided on staying with the sadhu and giving him proper treatment and care and giving up their journey towards the summit because it was their duty as a human being to help another in need.

c.)

Similarities between the decision-making in the Parable of the Sadhu and day-to-

day decisions in the business world include the fact that the framework used in the decision making process in the story of the Sadhu and in the business world is the Utilitarian framework of ethics. Obviously the climbers in the story of the sadhu made their decision based on what would bring about the greatest good for the greatest amount of people, which is what happens a lot in the business world. The business world is all about making money; all the companies and stores that are run even if it is not the main goal are open and running in some way or another for the end goal of a profit. In order to

make money and make a profit, it is necessary to see the decision that allows for the greatest amount of money for the greatest amount of people or for the company. An example of this is with a company who may need to lay off one worker because they cannot afford to keep him or her. The company is going to lay off the worker because it would result in the greatest good for the company, in other words, it would allow the company to stay in business because they would not be losing money by trying to keep paying that one worker. It is better to lay off the worker rather than lose the company as a whole because if that were to happen, everyone in the company would suffer rather than that one worker. Another similarity between the Parable of the Sadhu and the business industry is that in the situation with the Sadhu, there were many cultural differences, the Swiss, Japanese and Americans all left the sadhu, however, they helped treat him in different ways. This is similar to the business world because there are always cultural differences within the company, however, this means that there needs to be the creation of a shared value system so that everyone makes the same decisions.

d.)

McCoy says that “In each of us the Sadhu lives”, something that is very true.

What McCoy means by this is that in all of us, there will be at some point or another a time where we are struggling or may need help. The Sadhu from this story needed the help of other humans so badly, however, he could in no way make them help him or demand that they help him. Helping him was in the power of McCoy and Stephen and the rest of those that encountered him. McCoy and Stephen had the ability to help the sadhu but it was ultimately up to them whether or not they felt that they had the duty to help him. During a lot of tough points in our lives, we will encounter situations where we need the kindness and care of another human being to feel better or to end our struggle. Although we can always help ourselves, there are points in time where we need the help of others. For example, when we are children and are sick, we require the help from our parents to get better and to get healthy again. Our parents do not have to help us, however, with becoming a parent comes the duty and obligation to care for your child. Although the situation with the sadhu is much different, we can see that humans have the obligation to help each other in need because it is the right thing to do. Basically, what

McCoy means by saying that the Sadhu is in all of us is that all of us will have points in our lives where we need the help of others and it is unfair to not help others because if you step in their shoes, you would want someone to help you. This can be compared to the golden rule, do to others what you would want done to you.

e.) The lessons I have learned from reading this case is that everyone will need help once in a while. I feel as though it is our duty as humans to help those in need and put aside our desires to help others because it is the right thing to do. I always put myself in other peoples shoes and try to see how I would react if I was them. Most of the times if I put myself in the shoes of someone who is struggling or needs help, I find myself thinking that I would want someone to help me. It would be hypocritical of us to say that we wouldn’t help someone in need because if you were in their shoes you wouldn’t want the help because chances are, if you are struggling, you are going to want the help of others deep down. ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! Works!Cited! ! McCoy,!Bowen.!“The$Parable$of$the$Sadhu”.$Introduction!to!the!Catholic!Ethics.!Sep! ! 2009.!Print.!! ! ! !...