[QUOTE=Ogre]
(by Chief Pedant: “I don’t understand the consternation around leaving someone to die who has made an elective decision to risk death for personal glory.”)
Ludicrous argument. So let’s, I dunno, just leave race car drivers to burn to death inside their wrecked cars?
No. Just because someone accepts risk does not absolve you of your obligation to be a decent human being. Her party should have abandoned the summit and attempted a rescue.
[/QUOTE]
I think I’ve pretty much beaten this to death, and I don’t follow racing, but since it’s the Indy 500 weekend…I don’t actually recall other drivers stopping to help when a fellow racer crashes. It seems to be considered part of the risk and the rest simply continue jockeying for position under a set of flag rules or something which has been previously agreed upon.
The rescue efforts are undertaken by outside agencies set up in advance, understood in advance, and specifically designed to minimize risk. If they were not in place, it’s entirely possible some drivers would choose not to race. All racers are part of a larger organization, and racing is undertaken in the context of that. It is not considered unkosher, as far as I know, to continue racing rather than stopping to help…
In the case of Everest climbers, individuals and teams are there to pit themselves against the mountain. Some choose to stop and help others; some choose to be responsible only for themselves. All have made the decision to risk their lives for the goal of summiting. They are under no obligation to have risked their life in pursuit of a goal only to have that opportunity discarded for the sake of someone else who did not solicit their prior agreement to be there. From what I have read of Everest in particular, there are many marginally competent climbers and it is a source of frustration for competent ones to have their expeditions risked by amateurs who don’t belong there.
I am not saying her own party should or should not have stopped. I am saying only that if there was a prior agreement not to sacrifice the team conquest of the summit for a failing individual, it is fine to stick to that agreement since she would have undertaken that risk willingly.
I understand the general argument that there is a “mountaineering community” operating under some sort of understood mutual aid standard. Very noble-sounding indeed. Members who agree to that code, wherever it is, should abide by it. There are many who climb Everest who are uninterested in such a code, would not have risked their lives to climb Everest if they had to abide by it, and are uninterested in helping others. They are free to live and die by their own personal code.
Put whatever label you want on this latter category, including “scum.” Others would label all Everest climbers (including Hillary) “glory-seeking risk-taking idiot daredevils.” The question of whether or not one is obligated to stop and help does not hinge on someone else’s opinion of a personal code or whether or not you should be doing it in the first place.
I’m honestly not sure what your point is.