Ethics

What was the ethical way to handle the mountain-climber on Mt. Everest, David Sharp, who was passed over by 40 climbers as they left him for what they thought was dead?

Comments

I'm not entirely sure the facts are straight here. In the stories I read, many of the people who passed him by did not think he was dead. They could see that he was in trouble, but passed him by because they felt that if they attempted to help him, they would be denied the opportunity to reach the summit. If they really supposed he was already dead, I would be much more comfortable with their decision to reach the summit before coming back and helping to return his body to his loved ones.

Those who passed Sharp by had gone to great expense and effort in getting as far as they had, but it still seems as if stopping to make some attempt to help a fellow human being in desperate trouble is morally mandated by any proper conception of ethics. I read that some who were there did provide Sharp with oxygen, and did what they could to comfort and save him--despite their own interests in summiting. I find it difficult to imagine how those who passed him by, knowing that he was still alive--and not knowing (how could they?) that he was absolutely beyond help--can live with themselves. Reaching the summit of Mt. Everest would be a great thing to brag about. Delaying, or even failing to reach the summit, when one easily could have done so, in order to make every effort to save a fellow human being, is plainly the far greater achievement.

Read another response by Nicholas D. Smith

Read another response about Ethics