Analyzing the Parable of the Sadhu Essay Sample

and a lack of knowledge about what would benefit them, the three hikers and the Sadhu encountered each other in Nepal before they were identified as individuals. At the time, all of them wore the Veil because they were unaware of various circumstances and impending challenges. It could be argued that all of the hikers behaved ethically since they did not know in advance who would need help or who would be able to offer it, thus no one can be blamed for the Sadhu's condition.

In this parable, everyone has the same level of freedom and no one is obligated to aid another, nor is anyone permitted to harm anyone else. Despite societal inequity, Rawl’s difference principle is maintained, and Sadhu ultimately benefits from the unequal situation.

By strictly following the law, it can be inferred that had the tramps been in a similar scenario as the Sadhu, they would have been unable to provide assistance, ultimately raising the chances of his demise. This exemplifies utilitarianism's concept of prioritizing the greatest good for the most people. In this situation, the hikers' pleasure from their exceptional adventure was given consideration.

Furthermore, the individuals did not experience any harm when not wearing the lining for their own protection. Additionally, they experienced a sense of redemption by contributing in small ways to assist the Sadhu. This occurred despite the ongoing risk to the Sadhu's safety associated with this decision.

Assisting the Sadhu is a difficult task that may not appeal to a large group. It involves hiking and risking danger to the tramps. However, certain rules can be implemented to justify the actions of the tramps. For instance, when

traversing challenging and unfamiliar terrain under harsh conditions, if it is believed to be a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, then it is worth pursuing.

In regards to helping an alien in need, I will do so as much as possible while still being able to complete the hike. This concept can be applied more broadly and remain applicable. This falls under Act Utilitarianism, where the consequences of a specific event are considered. The situation described in the text does not mention the emotions felt by New Zealanders, Japanese, or Swiss individuals.

Although Stephen feels guilty and acknowledges that he should have sought help for the Sadhu, he ultimately failed in doing so and can be considered at fault. However, Stephen was the only one who recognized the seriousness of the situation and was morally conscious of his duty towards the human being, which outweighed any other priorities. Nonetheless, none of the regulations presented can explain how the story is relevant to the corporate world. One approach could be to design the story as a "dilemma" that can be resolved through the application of a regulation.

These theories remove the quandary from its context and lead to McCoy's analogy between that context and a corporate/bureaucratic one being distorted. The narrative is shaped by a rule-based analysis, creating only an abstract moral obligation for each tramp toward the Sadhu. However, in McCoy's interpretation, the tramps have individual values based on a shared set of goals. Therefore, one can arrive at their own conclusion.

Despite rule-based statements that justify the minimum actions of the tramps, McCoy's account of the events leading up to the monumental pick made on the icy mountain is an emphatic

contradiction. McCoy's narrative provides insight into how those few minutes were truly experienced, as well as the distressing effects it had.

Their lack of consideration for collective efforts and relationships is fostered by their narrow understanding of moral responsibility. An analysis based on rules views a moral inquiry as originating from an isolated and context-free agent, devoid of character and solely influenced by their inherent sense of reasoning. Understanding the Parable of the Sadhu highlights that no moral theory would have prohibited the tramps from helping the Sadhu, even if it was to a small extent. The distinction in cases like the Sadhu is not between right and wrong actions.

The Sadhu story highlights how we perceive the moral traits of people based on their actions, distinguishing between those that are okay versus those that are remarkable. It's important to focus on the true morality of actions rather than justifying them based on rules. This is especially relevant when discussing ethical theories.

The idea that a corporation is a unitary entity is not accurate according to the principle of corporate concern pattern. This principle recognizes that a corporation is made up of individual efforts, skills, and goals, and should not be seen as a single entity with disconnected components.

Unfortunately, the inadequate and unworkable understanding of ethical decision-making provided by rule-based theories has had a harmful impact. It has shaped and still shapes the way people in the business sector think about ethics, with some considering ethical thinking as unfamiliar and uncomfortable.

There are differing views on the use of ethical theory in achieving corporate success. Some consider it to be a perfunctory process, while others see it as a

challenging and individual battle to uphold their own moral principles despite opposition.

The differentiation between moral adequacy and moral excellence is founded solely on the idea of virtue, rather than responsibility, contractual obligation, or utility. It serves no purpose other than distinguishing one's degree of virtue.

According to McCoy, ethical reasoning involves incorporating inter-subjectivity in exploring historical patterns of concern. He believes that the story of the Sahdu teaches us that corporate culture should prioritize providing support and avenues for individuals to pursue their own values and goals. Management should also recognize and respond to the unique needs of individuals.

. Identify and ascertain the aforementioned subjects.

According to the author, the hikers were responsible for their failures because they did not focus on the group's benefit and lacked support for individual responsibility. The author points out that without this support, the group's overall success would suffer.

He asserts that without recounting Johnson and Johnson's resolve to recall and dispose of 31 million vials of infected Extra-Strength Tylenol, the individual is doomed.

We conclude by stating that, from our standpoint, the decision of the Johnson ; Johnson board reflects the fundamental business virtues of courage, resilience, trustworthiness, and discipline.

Our corporate creed prioritizes the importance of physicians, nurses, and patients, and upholds values of pure honesty, empathy, and loyalty towards them.

Our services and merchandise are for all individuals, including female parents. J ; A ; J's focus on care and healing surpasses mere financial profit. This is not a temporary mindset, rather it is deeply ingrained in the company's culture.

Did J ; A; J demonstrate opportunism while developing the ability to act virtuously, with excellence and strength of character to

do the right thing? Yes.

Praising this kind of self-interest that is closely linked to the community's welfare and intertwined with its fabric, without any conflict or hostility between the individual and community, is truly satisfying.

The alignment of self-interest with the community is evident when the Sadhu, traveling on a chilly mountain path, was not received well by the community. Nonetheless, individual members extended help to him, exhibiting kindness and providing basic necessities akin to McCoy's gestures.

However, individuals who wished to be on their way and back on track carried out the actions, and we are not disparaging their efforts as they may have saved a life. Nevertheless, we do not envy their exceptional ordeal- whether the Sadhu survived or perished.