The Parable Of The Sadhu

1053 Words5 Pages
Last year a group of friends- Mike, John and Sarah and I- decided to take a trip to Nepal and walk through the villages in the Himalayas. It was very hard and exhausting, but a life-changing experience. During our journey, we encountered a very difficult decision and we discussed it from different point of views. We found a half-naked pilgrim that was dying and suffering from hypothermia. We decided that we should make our decision based on our different statements. Even though we all concluded that it was better to save the life of the Sadhu, we all argued from different points of views. Mike made the Consequentialist argument, John the Kantian argument, Sarah the Virtuous argument and I mixed everyone's points of views. Mike argued from a Consequentialist point of view and thought that we should help the Sadhu. He said that if we helped the dying pilgrim, many people would benefit from this act. He stated that, for example, the Sadhu would benefit from the decision to help him because his life would be saved and he would be able to live and go back safely to his family and to his community. He added that his family and community would benefit since they were going to be able to be with their relatives again and that they would all be happy to see him alive. He stated that from an egoist point of view, we would all benefit as well since helping him would give us all the satisfaction of helping and saving the life of a human being and at the end we would all be content. He also said that we should still help the pilgrim even though we all had to make a sacrifice to help him. At the end, Mike concluded that if we helped the Sadhu and carried him back to the village, the outcome would be much better than if we didn't help the dying pilgrim. He further reasoned that the long-term consequence of our actions would be that everyone would benefit, since we would all be

More about The Parable Of The Sadhu

Open Document