At the Top of Everest, Physical Triumphs and Moral Failings

The BBC reports of a double amputee's climb up Everest and the ethical cliff he fell off of along the way.

Experienced climber David Sharp, 34, of Guisborough, Teesside, was on his way down from the world's highest mountain when he got into difficulties.

New Zealander [and double amputee] Mark Inglis, said his party saw Mr Sharp as they climbed the 29,028ft (8,500m) peak.

He said there was nothing they could do for him.

Sharp apparently managed to get to a cave before dying. The "ethicist" Daniel Sokol (who knew Randy Cohen could look so good) offers some strange thoughts on the decision, which mostly consist of distinctions to be kept in mind when making moral evaluations, although not much by way of which ones really apply in this instance and the reasons they do. Instead he offers a simple defense: they really, really wanted to reach the top of the mountain. In the BBC:

At 8,500m and -38C, in considerable physical and emotional discomfort, in a group of 40 climbers whose life ambition is to reach the top, and with maybe only enough oxygen for a direct climb to the summit, it is perhaps excusable that no-one volunteered to stay behind.

These extreme meteorological, psychological and social conditions should be taken into account when evaluating the climbers' decision. It is too easy to lay blame on the climbers by appealing to abstract moral principles and high-sounding virtues.

Decisions are not made in a vacuum, but in specific circumstances, and few can be as adverse and traumatic as those faced by the climbers.

(The current issue of Democratiya reprints Judith Shklar's famous piece on cruelty and liberalism, "Putting Cruelty First", which for some reason the whole Everest story reminded me of.)

Comments

[tde]

I was shocked at first, but when any concern I had for Sharp (the stranded climber) ended when I read that he had been climbing alone, and without basic safety equipment.

It's easy to pontificate from a position of warmth and safety, but when one chooses to put oneself in extreme conditions in the wilderness, you decide to accept certain risks and take personal responsibility for yourself.

Yes, it is a shame that the lone climber died (and won't be able to brag to people that he climbed Everest alone, etc.) but if the other climbers had stopped and rescued the idiot, that would only encourage more people to make such stupid decisions assuming that there would be somebody there to rescue them.

It is telling that some 40 climbers went past the lone climbers, so it would seem that theirs ethical system is uniform - even if it may not be to our liking.

[Dabodius]

"...a group of 40 climbers whose life ambition is to reach the top" mustn't have that ambition frustrated by saving the life of an "idiot," and that's the better because the forty agreed on it? There's a good deal of idiocy to go around, I think. One bit of it is mistaking Everest-climbing for anything to be admired or honored.

[Steven S]

I don't see Sokol's third option of someone staying with Sharp to comfort him much of an option. At high altitude you become very cold very fast when you stop moving. Maybe they could have stayed with Sharp a few hours but after that a climber generally has to continue up or down before they get in trouble themselves.

I think on the big E the guides are too mindful of seeing their clients get to the top and the clients are too weak to be of much help above 8K.

[harkin]

I read an article about the death zone on Everest. There was a Japanese climber who died and many climbers who walked past him as he lay dying took a lot of heat as being heartless. A few years later, a team of Japanese climbers went up with a goal of retreiving his body. Ten men were able to move it 200 yards before they gave up. Anyone who thinks they would do better is welcome to go up and try.