My point is that there are different rules up there.
Are all human lives equal? I wouldn’t say that they are. The “victims” have implicitly put a relatively low value on their lives versus reaching the top of a mountain.
Ludicrous as well. There is a system of rescuers agreed on by all and known to the racers before they start. There was no such system on Everest.
I notice the other racers don’t stop their bid for the checkered flag to help your burning driver yet you raise no objection to that.
No there aren’t.
Not that it’s relevant, but I did a little rock climbing when I was younger. I just dabbled but my instructors were hard core mountaineers. None of them would have behaved in the despicable manner described in the OP.
Even if there are different rules up there (which I agree there seem to be, at least in many climbers’ estimation), and even if everybody “up there” is in complete agreement with those rules (which seems not to be true), it’s still legit for other people to critique those rules on ethical grounds.
Just because we’re outsiders doesn’t mean we can’t make moral judgements. Even if everybody involved in climbing Everest were completely supportive of the policy of abandoning weak or sick climbers, we’d still be free to opine that such a policy is fundamentally immoral.
Of course, even if you think such a policy is immoral, if you’re intending to climb Everest it would be foolish not to take it into account.
Events show otherwise.
I have no problem with letting the mountaineering community be its own moral guardian.
Absolutely, but Everest must be one of the few places where there is an objective standard of ethics. The mountaineering community should have the right to set this standard as it pleases.
Again, I’m confused at your point. People behave despicably everywhere. The world is full of thieves, killers, and assholes. The existence of some, even many, mountain climbers who would abandon a fellow human being to die because helping them would spoil their day does not mean that morality doesn’t exist on a mountain. It just means there are bad people on mountains, just like there are in cities and suburbs.
and it seems obvious from this thread that there isn’t a consistant standard. Some have abandoned climbers, others haven’t.
Sounds like an argument could be made that you aren’t in a position to judge Baby Face Nelson unless you are a bank robber. 
So far, though, they don’t seem to have been able to set an accepted standard. Some mountaineers on Everest consider it a moral obligation to try to rescue other climbers, and some do not. This asymmetry can cause problems.
…as wring said.
Yes. Hilary seems to think it’s wrong, for instance. But I’m happy to let the mountaineers sort it out amongst themselves.
I suppose if you believe (and it would have to be a belief, not knowledge) in some sort of universal morality which this violates, then yes. I personally don’t.
I’m not into mountaineering (I hate climbing in the cold), but my finacee and I are both avid rock climbers, and we have a lot of friends who are mountaineers and ice climbers (won’t do that either, again, hate climbing in the cold). My one buddy has climbed a couple big peaks in Nepal, and he would never, ever abandon someone on a mountain, any more than my fiancee and I would leave someone behind on a rock ledge if we were in a reasonable position to get a rescue safely underway. (First rule of rescue, is don’t do anything that will endanger you to the point where you also need to be rescued).
Capatalist Lion Tamer has a point.
There are areas where we refuse to climb because there are too many dumbasses setting themselves up to be killed. B. has zero interest in climbing anywhere near Everest, and we have zero interest in any climbing areas that are so “easy-access” they are too tempting to thrill-seeking newbies. Everest has so many “adventure tour” businesses there that it has become too accessible to those who are really ill-equipped and/or too inexperienced to even consider such an expedition. I wouldn’t be surprised if a lot of Everest climbers abandon people simply because they do not have any rescue training. Rope rescues can be really tricky and there is no room for a fuck up.
The woman just left behind was on a “bargain” tour. She paid less than $9,000 for the privilege of being dumped on the mountain side. The guys who rescued Lincoln Hall had shelled out $20,000 each. Only really experienced climbers can manage K2, and few newbies are stupid enough to attempt it. But Everest adventures have been so commercialized that a lot of people who have no business being at altitude are taking the risk and signing up for the tours because it’s comparatively more of a “hike” than other mountains that demand more aid-climbing skills.
I’ve been climbing for over 15 years. I would never even consider myself to be in any kind of condition to attempt a summit like that. No way! But newbies shell out the big bucks and do try it.
What the hell does “universal morality” have to do with anything? You think it’s cool to let people die? Is this how you’d behave? Jesus tap-dancing Christ! I’m done here.
Clarification: I meant that Capatalist Lion Tamer had a point with respect to Everest being a “walk-up”.
Right now, it’s within my power to save a multitude of lives in Africa… yours too probably.
Saving lives doesn’t come at any price.
Would it make a difference if all the climbers had agreed in advance that a climber in trouble should be abandoned by the others, and that they’d rather sacrifice their lives than impede each other’s summit attempts?
Mind you, I’d much rather see the rescue ethos as the accepted standard of behavior. But it does seem to me that abandoning somebody to die in accordance with a prior mutual agreement of every-man-for-herself is significantly different from abandoning somebody to die when the usual ethical rules are in force.
[My personal radical unacceptable opinion: I think they should just shut Everest down. As in, off-limits, no admittance, get your stupid lusting-for-glory asses off this mountain. The combination of hideously dangerous environment, “tallest mountain in the world” glamour, and comparative ease in terms of technical climbing is just too deadly a combination. But I don’t consider this a realistic solution in terms of practical possibility.)
But saving lives is worth the cost of failing to accomplish a sports achievement, only monsters or fools think otherwise.
As did the folks who saved her. as did other climber stories in this thread. your claim that the mountaineers have ‘sorted it out’ doesn’t stand the test of even these few examples. absent any conhesive ‘standard’ you claim they have, we’re free to apply the universally spoken of standards condemning such behavior.
you are the one claiming that the mountaineers have a differing standard and others should not judge. it is clear from the examples in this thread alone that alternative standard does not exist.