Brett Irwin February 4, 2014
Parable of the Sadhu Business 005

In a world where capitalism is prevalent not only in economics, but in social status and achievement, many people are often consumed in personal “success.” This arbitrary definition of success varies in meaning from person to person, but for the most part is marked by trivial accomplishments used solely for bragging rights. While actually accomplishing the goals set may be difficult, the entire purpose of working towards them is meaningless. Such is the situation that Bowen McCoy, possibly inadvertently, found himself in, in the Himalayas. During his time at Morgan Stanley, McCoy was on a long and arduous journey high in the Himalaya Mountains. While hiking, McCoy, his business partner, and a group of other travelers came upon a Sadhu clinging to life, alone in the mountains. Expecting the summit of the mountain to be the highest point of his journey, in both possible meanings, McCoy soon had more ethical and moral responsibilities to consider than he had bargained for. Blinded by his ambitions, and set out for personal achievement, McCoy was not really doing anything wrong per se, but was soon faced by an ethical dilemma, without initially realizing it. McCoy did not recognize that he was faced with an important decision, but rather acted in the moment according to a simple set of standards. Firstly, he thought about his mission to climb the mountain. This was the first deterrent to helping the Sadhu more completely. After this, he only subconsciously thought about his experience with ethics, and his emotional position on the matter. He knew that something had to be done to correct the initial problems facing the Sadhu, but he did not recognize the dilemma of actually ensuring his survival, and putting himself out to help another, while putting personal goals on hold. McCoy clearly was unaware of the dilemma based on the fact that he did not know what Stephen meant in his question about, “contributing to the death of a fellow man.” McCoy felt that he had helped the man, while Stephen saw past the small acts of kindness and realized that without confirming the man’s well being, they were in reality contributing to his demise. Because McCoy didn’t treat the situation as a true ethical dilemma, he certainly couldn’t assess his choices using ethical guidelines. His decision was one of kindness, but not of true ethical compassion. Firstly, his decision does not follow the Golden Rule. In the same circumstances, freezing to death, naked, and alone, McCoy would expect travelers to not only provide him with objects that would help him, but also bring him to civilization, and provide real care and nourishment. One could argue that this would be a likely outcome if a hiker was severely injured and dying in America, and so McCoy would expect that level of treatment from the people that he himself let down. The decision made also fails the Public Disclosure Test; in other words, he would not want his actions publicized. While McCoy did have a large task to accomplish, he probably put more emphasis on the climb in his mind in the moment, due to the conditions, the effort already involved, and his altitude sickness. In reality with logical thought, McCoy would probably want the public to remember him for saving a life valiantly, rather than making it to the top of a mountain. This situation is a bit of a “Catch-22” in that the decision was only made because of the high stress level of the situation, but in situations similar, the decision made is usually a test of a person’s true character. Another consideration to be made is the utilitarian theory of ethics, or the practical consequences of the decision made. To McCoy, the costs of helping the Sadhu included not accomplishing the mountain climb, and possibly suffering from altitude sickness for longer. No irreparable outcomes existed, but more effort was the main cost. In terms of benefits, there were few for McCoy himself. Rather, it was the benefit of the Sadhu’s life. While this seems to be a sacrifice of effort for another’s life, McCoy himself did explain that once saving a life, that person would become a part of their group also working for their success. This shortsightedness was a weakness at the time for McCoy.
In the same fashion, McCoy did not consider long-term outcomes of the situation either. He would obviously have to put out more effort than benefits he would directly receive at the time. But, while he theoretically could have more opportunities to complete the climb he set out on, if the Sadhu died, nothing could be done to reverse this. McCoy focused on the present, and the personal aspect of the dilemma, and forgot to factor in what can be changed, and what is permanent, and ultimate, for the person it affects. Really, the lesson in this situation is to consider everything. Stephen and McCoy couldn’t be sure that the Sadhu would live, and did not consider the unalterable nature of his death, compared to their efforts. They couldn’t even be sure that helping him would have negatively impacted their experiences. As McCoy states, the most meaningful part of his journey was in a village, with the locals at a funeral. Individuals have a responsibility to their group, and groups have a responsibility to help the individual. Such is the way most government operates, even in “capitalist” nations, and is the way that capitalist individuals should value their ethical controversy. It is easy to push others to make the right choice, and it is easy in hindsight to see that choice as well, but in the moment it is sometimes immensely difficult to make the ethical decision, especially at personal expense. But, the path to correctly making these decisions is what leads people and corporations alike to contributing to a better society. Bowen “Buzz” McCoy has now experienced the importance of this school of thought, even if instincts lead him down the wrong ethical path initially.