Mountain Project Logo

Ethics vs Morals

Original Post
Gunks Jesse · · Shawangunk Township, NY · Joined May 2014 · Points: 111

-

highaltitudeflatulentexpulsion · · Colorado · Joined Oct 2012 · Points: 35

Good topic. I believe you also need to throw style into the equation.

Style is how I choose to climb the rock.

Ethics are what I do that affects everybody's experience on the rock.

Morals is more about the type of person you are.

So if I choose to climb a free solo a route, that is style. If that free solo was a first ascent, then most local ethics have to respect that style. In that case, it could be argued that respecting the local ethic ultimately is bad style. More appropriate examples such as a single bolt on a route to small or how much a hold can be comfortized before it's manufactured, etc.

For morals, dropping everything you're doing to assist in a rescue comes to mind. If your dog attacks another at the cliff, you need to pay medical. Stuff like that.

OK, now you know how I'm thinking, to answer the question. If the community ethic is that no bolts get added regardless of the danger, then this unspoken rule has relieved you of any moral obligation. If you're doing a new route though, it's best to think how a leader who is just breaking into that grade would feel. Concerns for others can dictate your style.

Safe and scary can exist together. Sometimes, because of ledges or obstacles, safety dictates a bolt every two feet. Other times in the case of clean overhanging routes, long runouts are fine. Think of the RRG. I hate that local ethic of runouts to the anchor but I've taken those 50+' whips very safely many times. It's safe. I hate the airtime but it shouldn't be changed.

Jimbo · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Feb 2006 · Points: 1,310

The climbing community has no moral or ethical obligation to keep me or anyone else safe while climbing. If I chose to attempt a route that is known to be R/X that is my choice. Indeed I would rather have that choice than have it taken away by the safety police.

35,000 people a year die on our roads. Do we have a moral obligation to eliminate cars as a mode of transportation?

If I step out in front of a train and get killed should we build high fences around every railroad track?

The world can be a dangerous place, the community has no moral obligation to insure my safety in every thing I chose to do.

Indeed the risk is part of the allure. If that risk is eliminated by the safety police I might as well stay home on the couch.

I do lots of new routes. I chose to bolt them so they are safe for the sport climbers who climb them. I, however, have no moral obligation to do so. I could just as easily place two bolts instead of ten. It would then be up to the climber to chose to climb that route or not. If they fell on the attempt I am no more responsible for their injuries than Ford is responsible for a driver that crashes his car while texting or running a red light.

highaltitudeflatulentexpulsion · · Colorado · Joined Oct 2012 · Points: 35
Jimbo wrote:The climbing community has no moral or ethical obligation to keep me or anyone else safe while climbing. If I chose to attempt a route that is known to be R/X that is my choice. Indeed I would rather have that choice than have it taken away by the safety police. 35,000 people a year die on our roads. Do we have a moral obligation to eliminate cars as a mode of transportation? If I step out in front of a train and get killed should we build high fences around every railroad track? The world can be a dangerous place, the community has no moral obligation to insure my safety in every thing I chose to do. Indeed the risk is part of the allure. If that risk is eliminated by the safety police I might as well stay home on the couch. I do lots of new routes. I chose to bolt them so they are safe for the sport climbers who climb them. I, however, have no moral obligation to do so. I could just as easily place two bolts instead of ten. It would then be up to the climber to chose to climb that route or not. If they fell on the attempt I am no more responsible for their injuries than Ford is responsible for a driver that crashes his car while texting or running a red light.
Pretty much spot on. I would say you've got a moral obligation to use safe hardware when bolting. Beyond that, it's pretty voluntary.
eyesonice2014 · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Nov 2014 · Points: 140
Dallas R · · Traveling the USA · Joined May 2013 · Points: 191
Gunks Jesse wrote:What I'm interested in is how the community weighs the moral sanctity/value of life with the ethics of climbing.
Sanctity of life; the one thing that you are absolutely guaranteed of losing is your life, it's just a matter of time. What I find more important is living.

One of my important morals is personal liability. I choose to climb (and all the variables therein), therefore I am responsible for the outcome, no one else.

Another expectation is that bolters will place bolts to the best of their personal ability. Of course individual ability is another subject that has a very wide interpretation.

To me, respecting others at the crag is an ethic born from the moral that other people have value.
Buff Johnson · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Dec 2005 · Points: 1,145

Along similar perspective -- you can't fix stupid.

We're at a time when route beta is plentiful. Thinking back to the times when climbers sandbagged each other with low ratings and death cruxes. Climb or die, falling wasn't an option. Now if there aren't 3 ea 30kn bolts protecting a single crux, panties get bunched. Still, you can't fix stupid.

Does it suck that someone took a digger while enjoying a climb? Sure.
But, not something that the world will lose sleep over.

Lead in good style, keep the climber on belay until known certainty, and otherwise fuck the second. Realize as the route developer, adventurous climber, or simply mild Internet trolling observer, life is risk and falling can be a part of that acceptance.

Ethics and Style to conserving the route's natural line.
Morality being uniquely unanswerable and subject to the failings of our bias and mob mentality.

And, beer is good.

teece303 · · Highlands Ranch, CO · Joined Dec 2012 · Points: 596

Say your limit is 5.12c: you put up a route at that grade, and it's well bolted.

Next you put up a 5.10a. How you bolt *this* route tells us a lot about your ego: if you run them both out a lot, I may not climb your stuff, but I'll respect your style.

What happens too often is an ego driven jerk puts 5 bolts on the 100' 10a, where he put 15 on his 12c.
I really don't respect that style. And when the leader at her limit gets hurt on that 10a, the original bolter's db style played a small part in it. Ultimately the leader must be responsible for their own safety, sure, but jerks who stroke their ego aren't cool either. And yes, that bolter has absolutely made an ethically dubious decision.

Indeed, we've seen older climbers that used to be prime examples of this kind of dickish bolting see the error of their ways after people were getting hurt on their routes. Some have even tried to fix things with retro bolts on their old routes (often to howls of rage from other climbers still stuck in their db phase).

Unnatural, focred runouts on terrain that you consider easy, but not on terrain you consider hard, is the litmus test. You're a bit of an asswipe if this is your style, and you force that style upon others. Flame on.

Gunkiemike · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Jul 2009 · Points: 3,492
Jimbo wrote:The climbing community has no moral or ethical obligation to keep me or anyone else safe while climbing.
^this

The question posed by the OP is as old as bolts themselves. It boils down to "Why don't we make all routes totally safe for all leaders?" As a side issue - how close should the bolts be to accomplish this? Every 6 feet? Hell no, you could sprain an ankle. How about 3 feet? Or better yet, 2 feet (so you always have the rope clipped above you).

A climbing world where such "safety at all costs", ahem, "ethics" would cease to be climbing as we've always practiced it. It would be gutted of all its intrinsic challenge and value.
marty funkhouser · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Dec 2007 · Points: 20
teece303 wrote: What happens too often is an ego driven jerk puts 5 bolts on the 100' 10a, where he put 15 on his 12c. I really don't respect that style. And when the leader at her limit gets hurt on that 10a, the original bolter's db style played a small part in it.
Something that many 'fresh from the gym' climbers fail to realize is that the protection ratings for climbs only apply to the difficult sections. For example, if your hypothetical 10a was adequately protected through the cruxes but had long runouts on 5.8 terrain, then it would be considered a G rated climb. It has never been a normal practice to bolt all sections of a climb with the same spacing regardless of difficulty. For this reason, it is pointless to classify a climb as safe or not by the number of bolts it contains. Like Buff said, the climb (and protection) need to follow the route's natural line.

And I miss the old days of sandbagging. All this 'beta all the time' nonsense smells like Communism. I did not watch my buddies die face down in the muck so that you little shits could go on MP and have beta for every goddamn move..........
PRRose · · Boulder · Joined Feb 2006 · Points: 0
Gunks Jesse wrote:I'm enjoying everyone's take on this. Another question: how do you define ethics and how do you define morals? Do they mean the same thing to you, or do they carry different connotations? Do morals apply to climbing? As a side note, I've never climbed climbed a sport route. I went to a sport crag once, but ended up climbing the trad routes. For me this isn't a question of bolts or no bolts, but rather a question of what you think about definition and responsibility.
Unless you are a philosophy professor trying to make some particularly abstruse point, there is no difference between morals and ethics--i.e., that which is moral is ethical and vice versa, and that which is immoral is unethical and vice versa.

By convention, the climbing community has adopted the term "ethics" to mean the rules that define usage of the common resource of climbable rock. It could just as easily have been "morals", "rules", "conventions", or a number of other terms.

As a sidenote, if you've never climbed a sport route, how do you know how hard a sport route you can climb? Or are you counting top roping a boulder problem as climbing a sport route?
David Gibbs · · Ottawa, ON · Joined Aug 2010 · Points: 2
marty funkhouser wrote: Something that many 'fresh from the gym' climbers fail to realize is that the protection ratings for climbs only apply to the difficult sections. For example, if your hypothetical 10a was adequately protected through the cruxes but had long runouts on 5.8 terrain, then it would be considered a G rated climb. It has never been a normal practice to bolt all sections of a climb with the same spacing regardless of difficulty. For this reason, it is pointless to classify a climb as safe or not by the number of bolts it contains. Like Buff said, the climb (and protection) need to follow the route's natural line. And I miss the old days of sandbagging. All this 'beta all the time' nonsense smells like Communism. I did not watch my buddies die face down in the muck so that you little shits could go on MP and have beta for every goddamn move..........
Yeah, but if the 5.12 climber bolts the crux of the 5.10a route as if it were the 5.10a section of a 5.12 climb -- that's not appropriate. And that's what I think teece303 was talking about. 5 bolts in 100'.

Sure, the sections of a climb that are noticeably below the crux-grade will be more sparsely bolted.

But, yeah, that may be a bit surprising coming from the gym. Gym climbs are ultra-close-bolted by outdoor standards. I find myself missing or almost missing clips in the gym cause the next clip arrives way before I expect it.
Alexey Dynkin · · Bozeman, MT · Joined Oct 2014 · Points: 0

In the context of climbing, it's better to define by example. Borrowing from a recent discussion topic:

-Being for/against project draws = ethics
-Stealing (or not) said draws = morals

Apparently some in the climbing community seem to confuse the two.

bearbreeder · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Mar 2009 · Points: 3,065

a few things

- many of the classic slab routes in squamish were bolted on lead by men in mountain boots ... the reason why there are significant run outs is because they kept climbing till they felt they needed a bolt ... and financial difficulties and the fact they hand drilled em likely limited the bolting

- retrobolting here is somewhat frowned upon at least on those easier routes ... to put it simply if someone from the 60s can do it in mountain boots ... what does it say if we cant do it with modern sticky rubber and out multitude of gear without grid bolting it ... not going crazy on retrobolting respect the original style of the FA party ... if you dont feel like doing a 50+ foot runnout on 5.6 slab then yr free not to do the climb

- if you are climbing a multipitch route you better be able to handle significant runnouts on easier terrain ... if you cant you have no business climbing long multi ... even if we ignore bolting for a second, on many moderate climbs where will be easy 5th class with little or no gear even on moderate routes, or youll need to conserve the gear for belays/crux

im a fan of NOT running it out too much when theres good gear ... but you had better be able to deal with runnouts several grades below yr climbing level if yr serious about multi

;)

Zac St Jules · · New Hampshire · Joined Dec 2013 · Points: 1,188
PRRose wrote: Unless you are a philosophy professor trying to make some particularly abstruse point, there is no difference between morals and ethics--i.e., that which is moral is ethical and vice versa, and that which is immoral is unethical and vice versa.
Here is the refute to this^ that I was waiting for:

Alexey Dynkin wrote:
In the context of climbing, it's better to define by example. Borrowing from a recent discussion topic: -Being for/against project draws = ethics -Stealing (or not) said draws = morals Apparently some in the climbing community seem to confuse the two.
teece303 · · Highlands Ranch, CO · Joined Dec 2012 · Points: 596

Marty: I said unnaturally runout. I'm not saying pure bolt count is our only metric.

Note: your example really gets to my point, too: the 5.8 sections of a 5.10a are comparable to what on the 5.12c? If we're going strictly by grades, then we need to look at the 5.11c/d sections of the 5.12c climb. How are they bolted? NOT the 5.8 sections of a 5.12c.

Sadly, tough guys all too often don't give two shits about a climber at their limit on a moderate, and make their lines completely selfishly, only caring about how comfortable *they* are, as if everyone should be as "hard" as they are. I hate that shit with a passion.

It's very selfish: when I'm at *my* limit I deserve a safe, closely bolted climb. You? Your limit is for n00bs, so you deserve to be runout and in risk of serious injury, because I'm a dick.

And yes,'I'm thinking of real world climbs that exemplify this, right here near Denver. I don't want to name the examples I'm thinking of out of respect for the dead.

(And again: it's a bit different if the bolter just runs everything out: that is at least defensible.)

tenpins · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Jan 2007 · Points: 30

mor·al
ˈmôrəl/
adjective
adjective: moral
1.concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character.
"the moral dimensions of medical intervention"
eth·ics
ˈeTHiks/
noun
plural noun: ethics; noun: ethics
1. moral principles that govern a person's or group's behavior.
"Judeo-Christian ethics"

Ethics of a doctor are to do no harm and provide care for everyone. Even if it is morally OK to let a child abuser die in the ER...

reboot · · . · Joined Jul 2006 · Points: 125
tenpins wrote:Ethics of a doctor are to do no harm and provide care for everyone. Even if it is morally OK to let a child abuser die in the ER...
I think that's pretty much the difference: ethics are typically more bound by social contracts than morals.

A doctor is supposed to prioritize care to the most needed patient, not based on the doctor's own moral judgement of the "worthiness" of the patient (say criminal vs victim). A defense attorney is supposed to provide legal representation best for the client whether or not the defense attorney thinks the defendant is guilty. In climbing we have "local ethics", not "local morals".
Greg D · · Here · Joined Apr 2006 · Points: 883

Well everyone knows every route should be made totally accessible for all. It's even in the pledge of allegiance.

"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United dorks of America, and to the Retro Bolt It for which it stands, one Nation, under skilled, unbelievable, with quick draws and stick clips for all."

teece303 · · Highlands Ranch, CO · Joined Dec 2012 · Points: 596

"Well everyone knows every route should be made totally accessible for all."

That's exactly what I was saying.

  • *rolls eyes*
Brad Gone · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Mar 2014 · Points: 5
Jimbo wrote: I do lots of new routes. I chose to bolt them so they are safe for the sport climbers who climb them. I, however, have no moral obligation to do so. I could just as easily place two bolts instead of ten. It would then be up to the climber to chose to climb that route or not. If they fell on the attempt I am no more responsible for their injuries than Ford is responsible for a driver that crashes his car while texting or running a red light.
How about an argument that the climbing community has no moral obligation to respect poorly bolted routes?

I think your argument would be sound if you were bolting routes on private land which you had complete control over. In that case you would have the right to bolt it as you see fit. However, climbing is community-based.

For the purpose of this argument I'll presuppose that you bolt on publicly used or publicly owned land - or Access Fund land or land that some owner is nice enough to let others climb on, for example. This would imply that there should be democratic input form the community, as there is in other analogous scenarios. So if your argument of no responsibility holds true then the argument of no responsibility of the climbing community to respect your bolted route must also hold true. That is, they are free to chop and re-bolt as they see fit. Of course there are exceptions. The utilitarian system of ethics developed by John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham would support this argument as well as the arguments others have put forth.

To be clear, I don't necessarily agree with this view. I enjoy and appreciate the libertarian approach to developing/bolting crags most people take. But libertarianism goes both ways.

Also, I've always thought of ethics as a system, and morals as a set of values. Seems like they are only differentiated in academia, though.
Guideline #1: Don't be a jerk.

General Climbing
Post a Reply to "Ethics vs Morals"

Log In to Reply

Join the Community

Create your FREE account today!
Already have an account? Login to close this notice.

Get Started.