Whitney's Dilemmas

Good Essays
Untrained, inexperienced and reckless thrill-seekers, pushing the limits to satisfy their desire to “live on the edge”. On any given day, these adventurers can be found in nature’s most extreme environments, taking unnecessary risks that come with a high cost. Imagine, a man wants to summit Mount Whitney, the tallest mountain in North America. He has no training, no experience, and no idea what he will encounter. Along the way he comes across a deep crevasse. Without regard, he attempts to cross the crevasse relying solely on his equipment that he barely knows how to use. As a result, he gets stuck in the crevasse and breaks his leg. Ultimately, a rescue crew has to come and save this man from his negligent actions. Who should pay for his…show more content…
These people are sometimes correct, but fail to mention the statistics on the majority of these predicaments. The opposition fails to make a good argument due to the fact they base their perspective from only one point of view, the survivor’s. As a result, their argument stems from the opinion that all of these “accidents” in nature are purely bad luck and being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Although, when we look at the numbers, it is obvious to see that the majority of these dilemmas stem from poor choices. In “The Cost of Survival,” Theo Tucker states that in 2012, during boating, hiking, or climbing activities, only “2,876 needed help.” But that, “more than 1,600 of those emergencies may have been caused by risky decisions. Someone has to pay for those rescues. The rescue of the family stranded at sea cost $663,000... and involved 728 people” (page 127). That means that over half of these life or death situations, in the wild, result from an irresponsible decision. This sea rescue was just one of many rescues where large sums of money were spent and rescuers lives were at stake during that year. The men and women who go in to save these people put their lives on the line to save strangers. The cost of these rescues should not be covered by taxpayers but rather the risk takers who are lucky to be alive. The percentage of these “accidents” that start with a poor decision is significant, which is why taxpayers shouldn’t have to pay for these people’s lack of judgement. Others might say that they weren’t trying to create a mess, which is obvious, but invalid because that’s like saying, “I wasn’t trying to crash” after getting into a car crash that was your fault. Of course you weren't trying to crash, but if you did something that was the cause of the accident, then it is your obligation to own up to your actions and take full responsibility. If you caused
Get Access