BOD said:
I wonder what the public attitude is in the UK concerning David Sharp who died on Everest and the fact that no one attempted to rescue him despite being only a few feet from him.
Admittedly Everest is in a different league of mountain from the situation talked about in this thread and he was a competent climber and not underprepared.
Should others have defered their summmit bid and bring him down?
QUOTE]
The BBC report indicates he was ill prepared:
Speaking to the Close Up programme on New Zealand television, Mr Inglis said: "The trouble is that at 8,500m (27,887ft) it is extremely difficult to keep yourself alive, let alone keep anyone else alive.
"It was like 'What do we do?' We couldn't do anything. He had no oxygen, no proper gloves, things like that.
"On that morning, over 40 people went past that young Brit. I was one of the first."
I'd have thought that any action, however futile, to help him would be worthwhile but if you are driven enough to want to climb Everest maybe ego comes first.
Whatever happened to the concept of the 'Good Samaritan'?
Ok, lets talk about moral. I believe that "moral" is the thing being involved here in out discussion. What is moral? Is there such a thing at all, or is it a mind mate construction, does it exist separate from the human mind / tradition.
Is there such a thing as right and wrong - evil and good? Are the 40 who left the young Brit there on the mountain dying evil - people devoted of moral? Or are they only 40 people going up the mountain being responsible for their life only - free of moral because moral doesnt exist in reality. The result of that thinking would be as:
If they help him that fine they are free to do so. If they dont help him that fine too they are still free to do so. If they choose to help him but they die themselves doing it, thats their choice, they will have to face the consequences too. You see, thinking in these terms set everybody free to face the consequence of their choices and existence. Its form of respect to the spirit of freedom and respect of the decision another human being is doing for his own life.
Now I believe that the young man dying up there on the summit was not a child, he knew what he was doing, he choose not to have oxygen, he chose not to take the help of sherpas, he chose to go alone. The result was he died. It was his choosing and in that way it was respected.
NOW! This doesnt exclude the fact that you can help him and that he cant be happy to be helped. You are all free! BUT he cant be angry and disappointed if nobody helps him because he doesnt hold a moral right to the life of other people to help him. Doing that he gives responsibility for his life away and forces other people with the weapon called "Moral" in submission. In that way moral becomes the enemy of freedom and respect.
He did his choices I respect him, I let him die or might help him that is up to me.
The case would be different if there is such a thing as cosmic moral like we enjoy the law of gravity. Or if there is a entity called God telling us to be a good "Good Samaritan". I saw a house in Finland where 3 small children died because they played with matches; the house burned to the ground and no person was there.
The children where innocent as children are, because they dont know better.
Now, they came no angels down from GOD coming to help them, children or no children they died. So, even the innocent, the not knowing little ones where under the law of "choice" and "consequence of their choice.
The parents did their choice to leave their kids alone home. (Mistake) But the kids would not have died if they would not have played with the matches either. (Mistake).
They would not have died if they would not have hided in a cupboard so rescuers could not find them (Mistake) the consequence to face was death. (No God or Angle came to help the little once either.).
The guy up on the mountain is a totally other story as he was grown up and knew what he was doing. So my view on the thing is:
I might have helped him. I am ok.
I might not stop to help him. I am ok too.
He might be thankful that I help him, he is free to do so.
He and society might condemn my free choice not to help him using their weapon of morale. That is their free choice but it doesnt make me guilty as there is no cosmic law of morale in the universe.
Moral is only a construction of the mind. Morale changes all over the world in history or location, while the law of gravity is everywhere.
You are free and I am free, do what you want!
// Abbe