A moral question of right or wrong.
 

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/att...150286180.html

What are peoples thoughts on this? Was it the right thing to do and just leave the guy there where he was to die? Should some effort have been made to try to get him down from there? I find this incident disturbing if what has been reported is accurate and true.

Every effort should have been made; you don’t just leave him there to die.

Agreed, it is very disturbing. People absolutely should have tried to save him even if it meant abandoning their climb. Mount Everest isn't going anywhere.

This is disgusting. They failed to climb the highest mountain. Shame on them.

:yep:

Also this guy Inglis got saved by climbers yrs ago when he was stranded a big search party went out to rescue him. I would think he might of thought its time to pay it forward, by helping this guy. But he didn't.

Still im no climber & the conditions were terrible. Who knows *shrugs*

Do I get this right - they ignored the wounded man on their way UP, not DOWN...???

I could eventually - depending on the situation - understand to leave a man behind if already in retreat, for example to get help, or to save the life of the others if there a threatening weather coming in pursue and there is no chance perceived to get the man down before the whole group is in danger. However, such decision cannot be made in advance, and cannot or should not be designed as a general blueprint. In that scenario I would respect both possibel decison being made by a crew: to leave the man, or to risk all and averything by staying with him, or taking him with them.

But ignoring a man like this while still on the way up, just because one is craving for the fame and is putting that above human life is... well, being a human means more than a body, two legs, two arms, a head - humanquality is defined by intentions, motivations, feelings, thinking, and doing. Seen this way, this creature that let that man die to continue with it's own climb is no human being, in my eyes.

And even some higher animals do not leave their dying ones behind that easily.

It was on the climbers ascent up the mountain and not down according to all the news repoprts that I have read. On the surface it appears that the climbers desire to reach the summit was greater than their concern for another climber in trouble. But I'll reserve judgement until I have heard from those that left the man there to die.

Watched abit of it on the news tonight, Inglis clearly look distressed, his family over here are upset naturally and he knows when he comes home on friday hes going to be hunted by the media as soon as he steps of the plane. He said he didn't do very much to help him, the others in the team he said helped more than him but there was nothing they could do (according to what he saw) he was dying. Still Like Edmond Hilary said, back in his days of mountain climbing everest there was just no way they would of left a man there to die, no matter how dangerous they would of brought him down. Another thing inglis said on the mountain there are dead bodies litter all over the place frozen standing or sitting up, due from poorly equiped climbers who pay $8000 but get no help, no oxygen, no scouts. Those who pay 10x as much get the full load so to speak, scouts etc., Dont know the real story but the british climber ran out of oxygen on the way down. Your a walking dead man without oxygen.

NO NO NO!!!! :nope:

Me personally, I would not care what the person in distress is saying; I would try to bring him back... if achievable. :hmm:

heck i'm no climber---but what are the odds that these climbers were --ahem --dare i even say it let alone think it in todays atmosphere of political correctness---climbing as a LifeStyle option-- not as a life-long passion-

yup that's it IMO they were after the bragging rights down the pub everything else including human beings are expendable to those in true persuit of a lifestyle

never could there be a clearer instance of people who dearly need to "get a life" then this bunch of wannabees

What Sir Edmond Hilary had to say:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/st...ectID=10383276

I think it's a lack of any sense of responsibility for others. The same attitude that allows people to ignore a persons screams for help because they "don't want to get involved".

they just calculated the odds and said "hard luck mate"---they had back up radio communication supplies good enough for the ascent/descent--40 people ---"you are the weakest link--goodbye" is what they basically said

Pretty safe bet that they more likely fell within the category of "extreme thrill seekers" (ie: tourists) rather than real enthusiasts or professional climbers. Though even then I don't know how they rationalized their actions. I suppose they simply thought a human life worth less than whatever their trip cost them.

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