Good intentions
There was a South African man who was caught training to climb Mount Everest even though he did not have the both the training or permit to climb the mountain.
Let me give some back story. The South African is a director and producer. He has a glider licence, is a base jumper, a volunteer fireman, a lifesaver and a conservationist. He also cycled across the United States of America last year. He has no children, eats fish but not meat.
His reason for scaling the mountain was that he wanted to climb the mountain himself, solo, unsupported. He also decided that "his main incentive' for being on the mountain was to help people in trouble." He apparently witnesses at one point "40 climbers walk past a dying man pleading for help". He felt that "If I could at least have helped one person it would have made a difference, that would have been my Summit."
I am not casting aspersion on this gentleman's desire to help or climb the mountain but now we have to the main issue of the story. When his lack of training and lack of a permit (or in his words cash) was highlighted by the Nepalese authorities, he decided to defile them by training by himself and scaling the mountain secretly. He was caught and was treated roughly and forced to pay a fine even though he did not have enough money.
Does the gentleman's good intentions to climb the mountain allow him to break the law and complain about the poor treatment that he received when he was caught? There are times when society has to weigh in on this matters. Is climbing a mountain a right? I can accept common laws allow me to access public spaces and using public transport. However, I also have to accept that the government has a right to bar me from certain areas (Eg. Military bases, crime scenes, other people's properties)
There are times when laws are unjust. At that time, I accept the need for breaking the law (Eg. If someone is trying to kill me, I am running to safety regardless of laws.). However, in most countries, there are avenues that one can appeal to. Alternatively, there are ways that people can work with the system to achieve the desired goals. (Eg. NGOs) However, I understand that those methods often take time and sometimes the time for the alternative is too long.
At that point, civil disobedience is the only available option. Except that the need to climb a mountain does not appear to be significant right. People are not dying if they do not climb the mountain in question. People are also not oppressed and suffering unduly if they do not climb the mountain. I am sure that the South African is suffering immensely by not climbing the mountain but he and possibly a few people are in a minority.
At this point, should the "needs" of a minority triumph over the interest of the majority? At some point, doing the illegal option will have consequences. This is hardly controversial. In the best case, the gentleman would have climb up and down a mountain. This hardly benefits society in any way. This is not as worthy as saving lives like some NGOs have achieved when they work with terrorist organisations or other corrupt government. All I can say is that I hope that the South African learns the correct lesson from this episode.
"No man really knows about other human beings. The best he can do is to suppose that they are like himself." John Steinbeck
Let me give some back story. The South African is a director and producer. He has a glider licence, is a base jumper, a volunteer fireman, a lifesaver and a conservationist. He also cycled across the United States of America last year. He has no children, eats fish but not meat.
His reason for scaling the mountain was that he wanted to climb the mountain himself, solo, unsupported. He also decided that "his main incentive' for being on the mountain was to help people in trouble." He apparently witnesses at one point "40 climbers walk past a dying man pleading for help". He felt that "If I could at least have helped one person it would have made a difference, that would have been my Summit."
I am not casting aspersion on this gentleman's desire to help or climb the mountain but now we have to the main issue of the story. When his lack of training and lack of a permit (or in his words cash) was highlighted by the Nepalese authorities, he decided to defile them by training by himself and scaling the mountain secretly. He was caught and was treated roughly and forced to pay a fine even though he did not have enough money.
Does the gentleman's good intentions to climb the mountain allow him to break the law and complain about the poor treatment that he received when he was caught? There are times when society has to weigh in on this matters. Is climbing a mountain a right? I can accept common laws allow me to access public spaces and using public transport. However, I also have to accept that the government has a right to bar me from certain areas (Eg. Military bases, crime scenes, other people's properties)
There are times when laws are unjust. At that time, I accept the need for breaking the law (Eg. If someone is trying to kill me, I am running to safety regardless of laws.). However, in most countries, there are avenues that one can appeal to. Alternatively, there are ways that people can work with the system to achieve the desired goals. (Eg. NGOs) However, I understand that those methods often take time and sometimes the time for the alternative is too long.
At that point, civil disobedience is the only available option. Except that the need to climb a mountain does not appear to be significant right. People are not dying if they do not climb the mountain in question. People are also not oppressed and suffering unduly if they do not climb the mountain. I am sure that the South African is suffering immensely by not climbing the mountain but he and possibly a few people are in a minority.
At this point, should the "needs" of a minority triumph over the interest of the majority? At some point, doing the illegal option will have consequences. This is hardly controversial. In the best case, the gentleman would have climb up and down a mountain. This hardly benefits society in any way. This is not as worthy as saving lives like some NGOs have achieved when they work with terrorist organisations or other corrupt government. All I can say is that I hope that the South African learns the correct lesson from this episode.
"No man really knows about other human beings. The best he can do is to suppose that they are like himself." John Steinbeck
Comments
Post a Comment