Ethics and Leadership in "The Parable of the Sadhu"

Introduction: A Real-Life Ethical Failure

"The Parable of the Sadhu" is not a fictional fable told to illustrate a specific moral principle. It is a real-life example of the failure of individuals to uphold what they might, under more placid circumstances, consider their usual ethical codes. When individuals face high-pressure situations and encounter persons from different backgrounds, ethical judgment can become clouded, and even morally inclined people can fail to exercise the leadership necessary to ensure that ethical actions are taken during times of distress.

While traveling in the Himalayas, the author of "The Parable of the Sadhu," the businessman Bowen H. McCoy, encountered a Tibetan holy man known as a sadhu. The man was apparently returning from a pilgrimage. He wore no shoes and was insufficiently clothed. Despite the sadhu's evident distress, only one member of McCoy's climbing expedition—an anthropologist named Stephen—moved to aid the man by giving him clothing. A few Japanese climbers from another expedition also attempted to help, but no one made truly effective efforts to ensure the safe return of the ailing pilgrim. The fate of the sadhu remains unknown.

Three Dimensions of Ethical Thinking: Situational, Contextual, and Cultural

Reading this case study, a reader is likely to immediately sympathize with the injured man. However, before judging McCoy too harshly, it is important to consider the extreme circumstances he faced when he made his decision. McCoy was concerned about the hazards ahead and chose to press forward. The porters on his team refused to carry the sick man to a nearby hut—something Japanese climbers were later willing to attempt. The porters argued they would be unable to climb the slope and cross the mountain peak safely before the snow melted. All members of all the climbing expeditions who witnessed the sadhu were highly stressed, struggling to communicate with native guides whose culture and language they barely understood, and were pushed to their physical and emotional limits.

Despite these pressures, Stephen was able to overcome them and later reproached the other expedition members for contributing to the death of a fellow human being. McCoy himself did not excuse his actions after returning to civilization. He admits that, more than concern for his own safety or that of other team members, he was fixated on completing the climb. He was so determined to reach the summit that little else seemed to matter—as if he had left his ethical principles behind upon entering a context where fulfilling obligations to others mattered far less than the competitive drive to reach his goal. Having previously failed to complete the climb due to altitude sickness only deepened his single-mindedness. The similar indifference shown by other climbers created a context in which "every man for himself" appeared to be the dominant ideology rather than a spirit of mutual obligation.

Stephen later attributed his fellow climbers' failure to provide adequate care for the sadhu to the fact that the sadhu was culturally and physically alien to them—disoriented by altitude sickness and unfamiliar in his demeanor and appearance (McCoy, 1983, pp. 104–106). It was easy to render the man as fundamentally "other," Stephen argued, in a way that would not have occurred had they encountered a fellow Westerner in similar distress.

Stephen, despite encountering the sadhu under circumstances identical to those of his fellow climbers, was able to bridge the cultural and ethical divide. Bowen McCoy attributes this to Stephen's commitment to Quakerism and to an ethical schema that transcended the immediate situation. The rules of Stephen's religion, which place narrow self-interest below the common good of humanity, held firm—Stephen would not abandon a fellow human being. As a member of a minority religion, Stephen had always stood somewhat apart from his companions by virtue of this ethical code. His placement of the common social good above personal gain also allowed him to resist the collective selfishness that normalized the determination to reach the summit at all costs.

Three Guiding Principles: Common Good, the Golden Rule, and Social Justice

One might also posit, however, that Stephen's empathy had something to do with the fact that he was suffering from altitude sickness more severely than almost anyone else on the climb—except for the sadhu himself. McCoy had previously suffered through a failed climb and may have unconsciously wished to avoid confronting the sadhu's distress as a reminder of that experience. Stephen, actively suffering, may have found it easier to identify with the sadhu. He was also, like the sadhu, a religious outsider.

With a clearer head and a restored commitment to what he calls "the Golden Rule," McCoy admitted afterward that he could not understand why reaching the summit had seemed so overwhelmingly important. The porters' objections now seemed like a rationalization: the sadhu's health should have been the priority. A few members of the Japanese climbing group did break off to help move the sadhu toward a village two days' journey away, but they, too, soon left him to continue their ascent.

The parable of the sadhu demonstrates that it is not enough for individual members of a community to fulfill their personal sense of moral obligation, as Stephen did. A true sense of ethical responsibility entails leading others and marshalling collective support to do what is right. Ethical action is not merely individualistic, nor is it about satisfying one's own need for moral self-approval. Correct ethics are about taking correct actions. One must resist the pull of self-interested norms—however dominant they may appear in a given situation or context—and work to create a more meaningful communal goal.