and that's a good thing..?
oh hang i've sussed it out---they were being "post ironic" oh well why didn't they say --that's allright then---- :()1:

To answer the original question it is required to have a moral sense, or code.

Anyone can say it was wrong, but not everybody can attest it was morally wrong, especially when it was ethically perfect when in conjunction with their own ethics.

My opinion is that it was wrong.

I'd also say it was morally wrong. But was the choice ethical? If all they wanted, including the man who died, was to reach the top, then it was ethically correct to let him die, one for all and all for one, if that was their motivation the man would tell them to continue to climb, don't let him slow them down, don't worry about him, make history for him. However, I doubt that was the case, even the most materialist of people would see advantages in rescueing him. Leaving him behind indeed points that these men will keep moving as long as they are in good shape, not caring about each other's own health. But if they were only after fame, then the most ethical choice would be to cancel the journey and do everything necessary to bring down the injuried man and rescue him, because then they would come out as [humanitarian] HEROES, and that wouldn't necessarily hamper them from trying to climb it again next year, or whenever they afford it again, so if they were sick people only driven by fame and reaching the top indeed, then they could've scored twice the fame if they opted otherwise. First by being known as life-saver heroes, even if they didn't really cared at all for the man and just the fame, and then they could start again, and everyone would remember them one more time, the "Hero Climbers", when they started the second try, to reach the ultimate fame of reaching the top.

It was morally and ethically stupid (and wrong), in anyway you look at it. Whatever were their motivation, goals and beliefs, one thing is certain, they were very short-sighted.

This very situation was the point of the 'Good Samaritan' story in the New Testament. The point of the story that gets lost on most people wasn't that someone helped someone, it was that someone considered an outsider, someone most people hated stopped to help a man in need when he had been passed by and left to die by several 'good' folks.

These guys should have cancelled their plans and done everything they could to get the injured man to safety. You can always climb a mountain next year; you can only save a man's life once.

They may have accomplished a material goal, but in my opinion these people have no souls.

This situation is entirely indefensible by the climbers. Perhaps, when climbers like Sir Edmund were struggling to be the first to summit Everest, along with many other firsts pitting humans against the Earth such as the race to the South Pole by Amundsen and Scott, death was an occupational hazard and technological limitations would have made a rescue impossible, thereby making continuance of the climb understandable. But today when people like the party in question climb for mere recreational challenge, human life should never be sacrificed for the accomplishment of reaching the top of a mountain. Mt. Everest will always be around, that unfortunate climber won't. :damn:

One thing british climber Joe Simpson (famous from Touching the void) said once comes to my mind. After his accident high on the mountain in Peru and during his unbelievable struggle trying to get back with a broken leg, he pointed out that it wasn't his will to live that kept him going. He was, in his delirium, already sure that he was going to die, what kept him moving was a vain hope of not dying alone...
If the Everest climbers could have saved him or not isn't the most important question, because a true human would care for a person and comfort him even as he is dying.

I have never been that high on a mountain but i have felt how altitude affects you at 6700m and it is a quite humbling experience. With all respect for the brutal conditions at 8000m+ I still really can't believe 40 ppl more or less ignored him on the way up. There have to been some strong sherpas and good climbers in that group that could have done something, and that without risking their life (but perhaps a summit). On the other hand 40 persons easily ignore a man in distress on the street, so perhaps its nothing exceptional at all when it happens on Everest.

Cheers Porphy

Death on Mt Everest is a normal thing. Avg is 1 killed at least per climb. I said yes only to the affect that we don't know the circumstances. Could he have been saved is always up for debate and every can be saved - problem is that you really can't airlift them off from that high and many times it is impossible with very high risk to ones own life to save annother.

Only the climbers know if it was possible or not to save this guy.

-S

One thing I commend Germany for is it's Good Samariton Law. If you can do something and don't it's your a$$.