[samtp]

I think the criticism on here is not too harsh and could have been predicted by people who knew he was doing this. Many people see the father as the protector of the household. Sure, this view plays into traditional gender roles, but to deny it would be to ignore the reality of how many people think.

By going off and risking his life on a personal accomplishment, he wasn't doing the best job to protect his family. There are an unlimited number of other ways that he could have challenged himself physically and mentally without the risk to the people close to him.

This isn't a criticism of John as a person, but a decision that he made. I don't know who he was and I'm sure that he was a great man. But he put his family at risk to pursue a challenge that is mostly a boost to his own ego.

[yelsgib]

You can't criticize a decision outside of the context of the person who makes it.

[samtp]

You're right. He probably had a deadly disease and the only cure was at the top of the highest mountain on earth.

Honestly what context do you possibly need? There aren't really a lot of externalities here

[yelsgib]

My point is that you don't know his situation, so you can't judge his actions. You don't know how many "externalities" there are (whatever an "externality" is).

The fact that you can't imagine a worthy justification (in terms of his value system or your own) doesn't mean that one doesn't exist. And no, you cannot categorically deny the existence thereof.

[BrandonM]

You seem to be judging people's decisions based on your own value system and dreams as opposed to theirs.