A) It’s true that the 'parable of the sadhu' contains valuable lessons for business organizations.
As the report highlights, significant ethical dilemmas mainly arise in organizational contexts
such as individual vs. corporate, cultural variance, decision-making under pressure, and public
vs. private goals.
Individual vs. corporate: Each person in different groups was willing to do his bit unless it
became too inconvenient, but no one was ready to assume ultimate responsibility. One person,
Buzz McCoy, was willing to help but could not due to a lack of support. There is a similar
dilemma in corporate life sometimes when an individual's career or life circumstances are not
supported by company policy or HR.
Cultural Variance: Since each group member came from a different country and had a different
set of values, it wasn't easy to reach the common goal of saving Sadhu. McCoy could not
persuade the rest of the group to work together and save Sadhu rather than complete their duties
and absolve themselves of guilt. Due to cultural differences, specific organizational goals sound
unreasonable.
Decision-making under pressure: In the corporate world, time pressure leads people to act
based on instinct and inertia rather than humanity and conscience, such as making a technologybound layoff decision. In the same way, the group felt pressure when it came time to decide
about Sadhu when the steps were about to melt due to the Sun.
B)
In light of the three questions,
If they do the right thing? There is always a clash between goal achievement and fulfilling
moral obligations to others as part of their ethics. If by helping Sadhu reach the nearest village,
they saved themselves from guilt to a certain extent and also achieved their goal. That is a winwin.
If they do it the right way? I am skeptical about how they chose to help Sadhu. There were
challenges along the way, and each group helped, but no one assumed full responsibility. There
may have been other ways, like one person from each group taking responsibility or calling for
more help from the nearby village.
If they do it for the right reasons? I think they did it for the right reasons but not to the fullest
extent, as they did not know what happened to Sadhu after they left. There was self-interest
involved in saving themselves from being morally wrong subconsciously. Had there been
entirely right reasons, they would have known the outcome and felt satisfied by their actions.
C)
The most significant insights were Utilitarianism and Kantian ethics framework.
Utilitarianism: Utilitarianism revolves around the choice that allows the greatest good to the
greatest amount of people. The decision to leave the Sadhu can be seen as a utilitarianist mindset,
as he was just one man. At the same time, many preparations depended on McCoy & Stephan’s
success in crossing the path and reaching the summit of the Himalayan mountains as part of a
larger group outweighing Sadhu's betterment.
Kantianism: Kantianism can be seen in this story as well. The Kantianism framework looks at
rights and duties, decisions, and obligations. When McCoy said – “When it got to be a bother,
everyone else just passed the buck to someone else and took off.” Even though this
framework did not decide the final outcome, but it was seen clearly in McCoy’s response. He
realized that giving the Sadhu food and clothes was not all that the Sadhu needed. The Kantian
ethics would have insisted on staying with Sadhu and giving him proper care, even if it meant
giving up their journey to the summit. This was because it was their human duty to help others in
need. This can also be seen as a law of Karma (although unproven) as we all will be in a
situation at some point in life where we will need help.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------