The Parable of the Sadhu by Bowen H. McCoy

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 alive…. It was fruitless to question why he had chosen this desperately high route instead of the safe, heavily traveled caravan…. 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 ‘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, ‘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 b...

... middle of paper ...

...k, stock and barrel. Stephen was a committed Quaker with deep moral conviction. His reverence for all human beings allowed him to more than just ‘attempt’ to help the sadhu. Stephen had asked the Japanese if he could use their horse to transport the sadhu and was refused. Fortunately, but not coincidentally, the sadhu was soon given food and drink that effectively save his life. Stephen had also requested that the porters carry the sadhu down to the nearest village. When efforts proved to be futile, he had no choice but to capitulate to the groups wishes to abandon the peripatetic. After informing Bowen of his efforts and the others’ disinclination, Stephen then began to condemn him for his lack of exertion of morality in the situation. Though Stephen forced his feelings about what had happened, he ultimately succeeded in instilling values in Bowen McCoy forever.

In conclusion, I must ask the question again: Can stress or environmental conditions excuse the actions of Bowen McCoy or anyone in a similar situation? In response, Bowen answers to the contrary, “Had we mountaineers been free of stress caused by the effort and high altitude, we might have treated the sadhu differently.”