The Parable of the Sadhu

After reading Bowen H. McCoy's, "The Parable of the Sadhu," I ask myself: Can stress or environmental conditions excuse the actions of Bowen McCoy or anyone in a similar situation? Joseph Badaracco says that "right-versus-right choices are best understood as defining moments; decisions that reveal, test, and shape." There is no doubt in my mind that Bowen McCoy's encounter with the Sadhu was a defining moment, but by not taking a stand and ultimately making sure of the Sadhu's survival, will the shadow cast forward by Bowen from his decision be one that he can live with; one that his peers could admire. Or will it be one that he and everyone close to him will see and often worry about. What will happen when another "defining moment" surfaces?

"I took a carotid pulse and found that the sadhu was still aliveÐ'.... It was fruitless to question why he had chosen this desperately high route instead of the safe, heavily traveled caravanÐ'.... Or why he was shoeless and almost naked, or how long he had been lying in the pass. The answers weren't going to solve our problem." Bowen McCoy did what any compassionate and humane person would do; he Ð''attempted' to help someone on the verge of death. The problem with merely attempting to help someone is that attempting to resolve a conflict is not actually resolving a conflict. It wouldn't be prudent for a heart surgeon to attempt to perform a coronary bypass and not create such a channel and subsequently sew the patient back up. The patient would likely die unless someone intervened and completed this task for him. But since Bowen did, in fact, Ð''try' to help a stranger while the sun was melting the 18,000 foot pass over that would allow him to achieve his main goal of traveling thousands of miles from his home to reach an elevation of enlightened experience, is he excused?

To answer this question, we must consider what the right thing to do was. Moral reasoning poses two questions: What is the right thing to do? and What are the virtues of traits of a person who lives life well.

Let's look at the first question. What is the right thing to do? Ethical egoism asks what action serves Bowen's best interests. Bowen's main purpose of going to Nepal was to achieve the once in a lifetime experience of traveling to the village of Muklinath, an ancient holy place for pilgrims. It is conceivable that this was likely consistent with his best interests, while helping the sadhu was clearly not. But, was it in Bowen's best interests not to help the sadhu?

What action produces the greatest good for the greatest number is asked by the utilitarianism concept. If Bowen would have done everything he could to help the sadhu, the only beneficiaries are the sadhu (Ð'...and possibly his kith and kin) and presumably Bowen for knowing that he did the right thing. This is a double edged sword because by further assisting the sadhu, the sun would have melted the pass over and Bowen would have sealed the fate of his journey and perhaps the others' as well, had they stayed behind. As a result, utilitarianism would not have been achieved if they had chosen to help the sadhu beyond what had already been done.

Kantian duties and obligations asks what rule would Bowen require everyone to follow all the time. Bowen says himself, "Not every ethical dilemma has a right solution." What does this mean though- isn't it crucial that there be clear processes for dealing with dilemmas? If so, why would Bowen and the others hesitate when such a defining moment manifested itself? The truth is that the one rule that Bowen McCoy would require everyone to follow would be to do the right thing. The irony is how anyone could use this rule as guidance in a Ð''defining moment'