Judgement Calls
Sometimes you have to wonder if there really is a supreme being tugging at the strings of life on this planet. The news that an Australian climber got into difficulties descending Everest, was declared dead by Sherpas attempting to assist him, and then found alive the next morning by another group of climbers and helped down to a base camp (and is still alive, although not completely out of the woods), is just plain spooky.
One of the few NZ sporting journos I enjoy reading is Richard Boock from the Herald and his piece on the Everest debate is worth a look. But I can't agree with him in one aspect: where he describes as "the truly weird" those who raise the point that we perhaps should be careful in expressing what we say about the rights and wrongs of the actions of the climbers who came across David Sharp.
We form, and express, opinions on a whole variety of things every day - I should know, I probably do it more than most. From "Richie McCaw is a cheat" (except when he's playing for the All Blacks) to "Greg Flynn talks too much", thoughts about others and what they do constantly emanate from our grey matter and sometimes are formed into audible (or written) expressions that others get to hear (or read).
I don't think there's many that would argue that we have the right to make and express our opinions. What I've struggled with over the last few days is when such opinions cross the line into questioning the morality and ethics of another, in a complex life and death situation, should we be so quick to open our mouths? Especially if we don't really know what the hell we're talking about?
Making judgements on the actions of another is something we all do. But when such judgements are on a person's core set of values, personally it's an area I'll more often than not pass up the opportunity to do so.
Boock suggests that Inglis (and others) should not feel "slighted" by the "highly subjective meanderings of a completely random bunch of onlookers". The trouble is, human nature being what it is, we do react to what others say and think about us. Boock, perhaps due to his occupation and his penchant for taking potshots at NZ cricket, probably has a fairly thick skin. Not everyone is so blessed.
One of the few NZ sporting journos I enjoy reading is Richard Boock from the Herald and his piece on the Everest debate is worth a look. But I can't agree with him in one aspect: where he describes as "the truly weird" those who raise the point that we perhaps should be careful in expressing what we say about the rights and wrongs of the actions of the climbers who came across David Sharp.
We form, and express, opinions on a whole variety of things every day - I should know, I probably do it more than most. From "Richie McCaw is a cheat" (except when he's playing for the All Blacks) to "Greg Flynn talks too much", thoughts about others and what they do constantly emanate from our grey matter and sometimes are formed into audible (or written) expressions that others get to hear (or read).
I don't think there's many that would argue that we have the right to make and express our opinions. What I've struggled with over the last few days is when such opinions cross the line into questioning the morality and ethics of another, in a complex life and death situation, should we be so quick to open our mouths? Especially if we don't really know what the hell we're talking about?
Making judgements on the actions of another is something we all do. But when such judgements are on a person's core set of values, personally it's an area I'll more often than not pass up the opportunity to do so.
Boock suggests that Inglis (and others) should not feel "slighted" by the "highly subjective meanderings of a completely random bunch of onlookers". The trouble is, human nature being what it is, we do react to what others say and think about us. Boock, perhaps due to his occupation and his penchant for taking potshots at NZ cricket, probably has a fairly thick skin. Not everyone is so blessed.
Labels: Everest
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home