The parable of the Sadhu is a lesson in corporate and individual ethics based on the experience of Dr. Bowen McCoy while hiking in Nepal. The experience of McCoy illustrates the nature of ethical dilemma in business as the Sadhu needs help; however, the individuals in the group only give enough help that they are not significantly inconvenienced by the Sadhu. McCoy compares the magnitude of assistance given by members of the group to the amount of ethical responsibility corporations have for their own ethical dilemmas and notes that the actions taken by members of the group were enough to “[pass] the buck to someone else and [take] off” (McCoy 4).
The actions taken by McCoy were wrong. From an individual standpoint, McCoy knew that the Sadhu was not well and left him in treacherous weather and knew he was not able to care for himself. It was possible for McCoy himself to help the Sadhu down to an area where he could be nursed back to health. While the Sadhu made a poor decision to take the route, he did down the trail, he was still a human in poor condition and helping a person who is in need is more important than being victorious in climbing a mountain (McCoy 5). McCoy was wrong because he chose to continue a journey contributed nothing to anyone other than his own self-fulfillment of a life goal over possibly saving a life.
In defense of McCoy, however, there are other elements of the story to take into consideration. One thing to consider is that there was no guarantee that either the Sudhu was going to die if left alone or that getting down the mountain would be pivotal in recovery. There is no proof that McCoy or the other people on the trip had any influence on whether the Sudhu would survive or not. In addition, there were other people on the trip as well, and it is not always possible for people to make the climb. There are years when it is impossible. If someone in the group was terminally ill it is possible that this would be their last chance (McCoy 5). Finally, the travelers had to leave early so they could make it across because the ice could thaw. The ice could have weakened if thy helped the Sudhu. If they tried going across after helping, they could be in danger of falling.
The question was posed by Stephen regarding how McCoy would respond if the Sudhu was a more sympathetic character. It is conjecture to consider McCoy’s actions if it was a child or a young woman who they found rather than the Sudhu. There is no evidence that McCoy would have acted differently. My opinion, however, is that McCoy would behave differently. This is because people would more likely think less of a person who would abandon a young western woman or a child. It is also easy to excuse helping a young woman and a child over an old man because of the utility of each person. An old man would probably not have much usefulness left to society. A young woman or a child would. Stephen also brought up the scenario of if it was a well-dressed Nepalese man. A well-dressed man would likely have value for society as well because businesspersons and important people have the means and reason to be dressed well. The usefulness of the person in the predicament that the Sudhu is in should be considered when deciding what to do. Considering the value of one life against another to society at-large would fit well with utilitarian ethics (Vaughn 19). In this situation, however, the cost of continuing with the trip appears to be lower than the cost of the life of a person, even if they are frail and assistance would be a futile activity.
When considering ethical dilemmas such as the one McCoy faced, context does matter. There are a number of elements in this situation that should be considered when analyzing the actions of McCoy and the group. The group found the Sudhu many miles above sea level on a dangerous mountaintop (McCoy 5). The safety of the group and the value of the Sudhu is a wise consideration to make. The ability of the Sudhu to survive in this scenario should be considered. These things should change the standards of what would be an acceptable decision. The presence of other people in our group should have a bearing on what is done.
Conceivably, a group should be more responsible than an individual. A single person should not leave a person to die, but a group should not allow other members of the group leave a person to die. In this story Stephen tried to take a position of leadership based on this idea. He was unsuccessful because the group implicitly agreed that the group had no responsibility to save the Sudhu, and that individuals only had a limited responsibility. Their group contribution was constrained by what they agreed to give.
What needs to change is that rather than focusing on giving what they agreed to give, people should have focused on filling the gaps in how the Sudhu was being helped. The experience should be transformational, not transactional. This also applies to the approach taken to stakeholders. Businesses should not look to fill agreed upon responsibilities or what the organization has stated as its goals. The organization should make the goals a part of whom the organization is.
McCoy regrets the decision to leave the Sudhu on the mountain. The regret for leaving the Sudhu on the mountain has stuck with him for decades. The regret of McCoy is evidence that living a good life requires that we consider the consequences of our actions on other people. More importantly, living a good life requires that we live to help others, and that our self-fulfillment come from helping people succeed and survive. It is difficult to identify moral dilemma. Sometimes people ignore moral dilemma because their focus is on other goals. One thing people can do to avoid moral dilemma is consider the condition of the people around us and what impact our actions will have on people. It is difficult to do this and people must learn from their mistakes. Moral mistakes can be painful lessons later in life; however, they will teach us the consequences of selfish behavior. They may also us to take a holistic approach to planning so that we do not do harm indirectly.
Works Cited
McCoy, Bowen H. "The Parable of the Sadhu." Harvard Business Review, vol. 61, no. 5, 1983, pp. 103-108.
Vaughn, Lewis. Doing Ethics: Moral Reasoning and Contemporary Issues. WW Norton & Company, 2015.
