CptTightPants21
Contributor
No-one knows The Right Answer™. It's always a continuum, and no-one knows where the border that separates black from white in a fuzzy grey continuum lies. Hindsight is always 20/20.
That said, I have to admit that I have little respect for what I perceive as a very Anglo-Saxon cultural phenomenon: the reverence of the heroic, but futile attempt. In my opinion, a rescuer should never attempt a rescue operation unless that person has a minimum of competence and is able to competently assess the risk they are taking. Mindless and incompetent rescue attempts don't deserve praise, because they will most probably only result in another fatality.
Playing a little devil's advocate here, if you decided to go back for a buddy would you assume a "level of competence" and an ability to "assess the risk". Sometimes these things are in the eye of the beholder and sometimes they are blatantly obvious (the father of the teenage that Sorenson saved is a good example).
At the end of the day, it is each person's own choice whether to risk their life trying to save another. Anyone who makes this choice needs to be able to deal with the consequences, one way or the other.
I will never fault a man who chooses not to risk his life to help, I will only fault him if he prevents others from making their own decision.
My personal opinion: I'll go back for friends and complete strangers, Darwin can have the assholes.