Mountain Project Logo

Ethics vs Morals

teece303 · · Highlands Ranch, CO · Joined Dec 2012 · Points: 596
  • ** "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." ***

Be very, very careful with this thinking.

You absolutely have an an obligation, moral or otherwise, to bolt routes reasonably. The rock does not belong to you, and when you bolt it you are making protection decisions for generations to come. You damn well have better made good decisions.

We can argue over what constitutes "reasonable." We can't pretend the first ascensionist has free reign to do whatever the hell she wants.
tenpins · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Jan 2007 · Points: 30
Gunks Jesse wrote: If a single bolt saves a single life but violates the ethics of a particular climbing area is it worth the life to put it in?
wtf are you talking about? your statement equates a bolt as a life saver.

listen, your OP is a bunch of dime store bullshit wannabe philosophy. You are putting a lot of energy into convincing yourself that you, or someone you know, is "saving a life" by putting some bolts in somewhere.

the 'moral sanctity of life'? Have you looked outside your perfect world? americans barely value any life except their own.

How do I justify that run out section of a trad climb? because its not my decision. I will gladly warn anyone who will listen on the danger, but that 'religion' thing you mentioned gives us free will. I cant stop you from climbing that. But the one thing that is "accepted by the masses' is the ethic of the first ascent.

people die in couloirs all the time. Should we bolt them? SHould we ban snow climbs? that "sanctity of life" you mention?

come clean, you know someone who wants to slap a bolt in a climb so that they can finally climb something
bearbreeder · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Mar 2009 · Points: 3,065

how times have changed ...

1967 climbers guide, squamish

;)

Greg D · · Here · Joined Apr 2006 · Points: 883
teece303 wrote:"Well everyone knows every route should be made totally accessible for all." That's exactly what I was saying. * *rolls eyes*
But I was actually joking. I thought that was painfully obvious since I made such a ridiculous statement.

Ah! The ignorance of man... to think you can protect man from himself. And to believe you are morally righteous. I love it.
M Mobley · · Bar Harbor, ME · Joined Mar 2006 · Points: 911

I think ALL climbs should be done without bolts so people can smash their brains in, break lots of bones and tell the world how badass they used to be, that way we can get back to the days when 5.9 was HARD and gyms and boulderers didnt exist. I also like to let my 4 year old ride in the back of the car with no safety belts/seats while smoking ciggies cause that is old school bad-assery too. If the kid doesnt smash her face into/through the windshield/dashboard every time I jam on the brakes how the hell is she ever gonna learn how to hold on? If you dont like the smell of my butts hold your damn breath.

Salamanizer Ski · · Off the Grid… · Joined Sep 2005 · Points: 18,914
How do you justify not placing a single bolt on a run out section of a trad route that is known to be dangerous and has taken lives in the past?

"People die, it's as natural as rain on a God damn Sunday morning!

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.

No it's not. When I'm doing a new route, I'm thinking about ME and my own self preservation vs. time and energy expended. Ethics tend to dictate style if you stick to them.

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


Bullshit! I've put up routes that are 5.12+ ground up and I was able to protect them very well. Because I had too. However, I've also put routes up that were 5.9 and are runnout as all hell. I didn't protect them less because of ego. I protected them less because I was too lazy, too strapped for time, couldn't afford it, too tired, ran out of bolts or tired of drilling another god damn hole. Lots of reasons, none of which had anything to do with ego. Don't like it... too god damn bad! I didn't climb the route so you could safely follow. What's so hard to understand about that? When putting up a sport route, I get it. But when going ground up, you're preference of style or particular brand of ethics don't mean shit to me.

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.

Which is why I'm a firm believer in "forcing SAFE" runnouts in gyms;)

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.

Horse shit! Public, private, doesn't Fukkin matter. Respect is respect, publicly or privately.

We can argue over what constitutes "reasonable." We can't pretend the first ascensionist has free reign to do whatever the hell she wants.

As long as what they do is deemed "ethical" by the climbing community at large, yes you can...
Brad Gone · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Mar 2014 · Points: 5
Salamanizer wrote: How do you justify not placing a single bolt on a run out section of a trad route that is known to be dangerous and has taken lives in the past? "People die, it's as natural as rain on a God damn Sunday morning! 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. No it's not. When I'm doing a new route, I'm thinking about ME and my own self preservation vs. time and energy expended. Ethics tend to dictate style if you stick to them. 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 Bullshit! I've put up routes that are 5.12+ ground up and I was able to protect them very well. Because I had too. However, I've also put routes up that were 5.9 and are runnout as all hell. I didn't protect them less because of ego. I protected them less because I was too lazy, too strapped for time, couldn't afford it, too tired, ran out of bolts or tired of drilling another god damn hole. Lots of reasons, none of which had anything to do with ego. Don't like it... too god damn bad! I didn't climb the route so you could safely follow. What's so hard to understand about that? When putting up a sport route, I get it. But when going ground up, you're preference of style or particular brand of ethics don't mean shit to me. 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. Which is why I'm a firm believer in "forcing SAFE" runnouts in gyms;) 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. Horse shit! Public, private, doesn't Fukkin matter. Respect is respect, publicly or privately. We can argue over what constitutes "reasonable." We can't pretend the first ascensionist has free reign to do whatever the hell she wants. As long as what they do is deemed "ethical" by the climbing community at large, yes you can...
"People die" isn't an argument. "Natural" has nothing to do with ethics or morality. Anyone who has ever seriously thought about ethics or read ONE PAGE of any book about ethics will easily point out that this kind of argument is infantile nonsense.

So because you were too lazy to safely bolt a route on land which you have NO RIGHT TO DO SO I should respect your shoddy bolting?

Do it right or don't do it at all. If "respect is respect," does that not apply to, say, others' safety? Granted, we are talking about an inherently dangerous sport, but if you're too lazy to properly bolt a route than it is perfectly respectable to chop it and either retrobolt it or simply leave it chopped. Shitty work deserves no respect, public or private.
Christian RodaoBack · · Tucson, AZ · Joined Jul 2005 · Points: 1,486

Ethical and moral systems, whether enforced legally or through extralegal social retaliation, etc are all about power struggles, social status competition, conflicts of interest, enforcing cooperation within the "in" group to better fight against the "out" group, etc, etc

Thus, all other things being equal, the bolder/better climber is gonna tend to feel less "ethically" responsible for lesser climbers, the rich right-winger is gonna tend to feel lower taxes are more "ethically" important than a social safety net, the poor, white right-winger may resent the social safety net extended to other races to the extent of voting against his own economic interests, older married women may feel "promiscuous" younger women who may catch their husband's eye are "immoral", etc, etc ad infinitum..

In the end there is no logic but the logic of power.

As far as specifics, as much as I may resent entire giant faces taken over by death routes, last I checked, the informal social power is still on the side of needing the FA's permission to add bolts.

Brad Gone · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Mar 2014 · Points: 5
Jeremy Aslaksen wrote:I'm with Salamanizer on this. Other peoples safety is not my concern on new routes...MY safety is. Take responsibility for yourself and realize that some routes aren't for you for whatever reason. Go do another route within your abilities or better yet...go do your own.
Climbing your own route is a luxury most climbers will never get to enjoy. I agree it's a better option, but it's also kind of elitist.

I'm not really sure how people can rationalize their selfishness in these matters. Perhaps you would feel differently were someone close to you to get injured or killed while climbing a suspect sport route. Perhaps.

Sure, a run-out easy section of 5.8 climbing on a 5.10 probably doesn't need to be bolted every 10-15 feet. But suppose it's low on the route and you slip, make a stupid mistake, get hit with a rock or whatever. Now you've got broken ankles or worse just because someone didn't want to add one more lousy bolt. Climbers should assess the routes they climb and climb according to their abilities but it isn't always such a clear-cut choice.
Salamanizer Ski · · Off the Grid… · Joined Sep 2005 · Points: 18,914
Brad Gone wrote: "People die" isn't an argument. "Natural" has nothing to do with ethics or morality. Anyone who has ever seriously thought about ethics or read ONE PAGE of any book about ethics will easily point out that this kind of argument is infantile nonsense.


Your level of self enlightenment is kinda rediculous, but your right "People Die" isn't an argument. It's justification. That was you're misunderstanding. Go back and re-read the question.

Brad Gone wrote: So because you were too lazy to safely bolt a route on land which you have NO RIGHT TO DO SO I should respect your shoddy bolting? Do it right or don't do it at all.
Actually, I have EVERY RIGHT TO DO SO. This land is your land, this land is MY land etc... It's not "shoddy" bolting. In my example, I just didn't want to stop and drill another bolt because I didn't really need too. The reasoning is actually irrelevant. Shoddy bolting is half ass slappin in any old piece of crap, and paying no attention to doing it right. There's a difference. Other than that, yeah, if that's the way the route went down, you should respect it. If you don't like it. You're free to exercise your first amendment rights and express you're opinion about it. If you don't like the answer to your opinionated suggestion, too bad, move along. That's respect.

Brad Gone wrote: If "respect is respect," does that not apply to, say, others' safety? Granted, we are talking about an inherently dangerous sport, but if you're too lazy to properly bolt a route than it is perfectly respectable to chop it and either retrobolt it or simply leave it chopped.
No! No it doesn't. Because I have no way of evaluating your need for "safety" when putting up a route. That's for you to judge, but you have an ethical obligation to respect the F.A. So long as it falls in line with local traditions and ethics. It's not all black and white. Ethics are a fluid set of values that often change from place to place and even over time. You just need to use good judgment and reserve when dealing with it. And respect is your first line of defense.

Brad Gone wrote: Shitty work deserves no respect, public or private.
I would have to agree with you there. But you need to be aware and seriously think about the difference between your idea of "shitty work" and someone elses.

My personal take on the whole thing. If I put up a route that you feel is unnecessarily dangerous. You're free to supplement it with fixed gear. The only thing that I ask is that you supplement it using the same style that I did when putting it up, as well as tell me before you just go out and do it.
Reason being, my routes are mostly done ground up, hand drilling at natural stances. I prefer to let the rock dictate the protection. However, that leaves a lot of sections where I didn't place a bolt because I was too tired to stop or "too lazy". Hand drilling is tedious. If you feel it needs added protection, then you're free to blow your elbos out and develop arthritis in your toes to put it in. If it's a top down sport route, just let me know before you put one in. I usually don't care.

Keep in mind, that's my personal take on it and not everyone elses. And you should respect that.
Dan Austin · · San Francisco, CA · Joined Oct 2010 · Points: 0
Salamanizer wrote: Bullshit! I've put up routes that are 5.12+ ground up and I was able to protect them very well. Because I had too. However, I've also put routes up that were 5.9 and are runnout as all hell. I didn't protect them less because of ego. I protected them less because I was too lazy, too strapped for time, couldn't afford it, too tired, ran out of bolts or tired of drilling another god damn hole. Lots of reasons, none of which had anything to do with ego. Don't like it... too god damn bad! I didn't climb the route so you could safely follow. What's so hard to understand about that? When putting up a sport route, I get it. But when going ground up, you're preference of style or particular brand of ethics don't mean shit to me.
Just playing devil's advocate, but…

Do you think that you'd have been more inclined to place more fixed protection on those 5.9s if you weren't a 5.12+ climber? And if that doesn't matter because you only care about YOU when you're putting up your route, why shouldn't subsequent climbers also only care about themselves, i.e., why should they respect your wishes or give a damn about the style you did the ascent? On the one hand you want the carte blanche to be totally inconsiderate when you're climbing, but at the same time expect that others will respect your wishes/decisions, at least to some degree. Is the "right" to dictate a route's style for others the reward for putting in the effort/resources to put up the climb?

For whatever it's worth, I actually think I mostly agree with what you're saying. But I think the key is emphasizing that the accepted style is determined by unofficial community consensus, rather than what the FA felt like. The community consensus for a given area might change over time, and fixed protection on new and old routes alike should be expected to change with it.
Alexey Dynkin · · Bozeman, MT · Joined Oct 2014 · Points: 0

The last page of this discussion really isn't about ethics or morals, but about responsibility. As a mere humble, entirely middle-of-the road climber with no FAs under his belt, content for the moment to climb other people's routes, my $0.02 on the question of responsibility are this:

When I get on a route, I'm 100% responsible for researching it and planning accordingly. If I don't like the way a bolt was placed or the spacing, I may well grumble and curse about it as I s^%t my pants trying to clip, but ultimately I'm not going to blame anyone but myself if I blow it. The only possible exception would be if someone deliberately gave bad or misleading beta - but this seems to a very rare circumstance (typically bad beta is simply the product of a mistake, and this possibility should also be taken into account during the "research and planning" part).

Having said this...if I were to put up a route that includes fixed gear, I think I would feel at least some degree of responsibility for those who might follow. This is just a personal sentiment, it's not a matter of wrong or right, and I'm not projecting onto others. It seems that most people who put up routes DO have a sense of responsibility; the debate is really about the line at which this responsibility is drawn. Which, not having done it yet, I'll refrain from judging.

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

I love folks that elevate selfishness to an art form. It's all about ME!

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

If you don't feel a PROFOUND responsibility to those that follow a route you put up, you have ZERO place to be bolting a new route, both ethically and morally. And it's just stupid that that needs to be said.

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

Some of you folks would piss your pants at the popular slab climbs up here in squamish

The ones that generations of climbers have run up just fine in everything from barefoot to the latest $$$$ tc pros

If you cant deal with runnouts on easy ground you have no business being on a lot of the multi here, never mind the canadian rockies

And squamish is generally considered well protected and beginner climber friendly

;)

marty funkhouser · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Dec 2007 · Points: 20
Alexey Dynkin wrote: If I don't like the way a bolt was placed or the spacing, I may well grumble and curse about it as I s^%t my pants trying to clip, but ultimately I'm not going to blame anyone but myself if I blow it.
My attitude when I encounter a route that I deem inadequately protected is to retreat and work on uping my game. Many times I will return at a later date to send the route and without a doubt, those are the sweetest victories in climbing. Other times I realize that I'll never be good enough to safely climb the route and I just file the climb away as beyond my reach. That's fine with me. I'll also never be able to hit a major league fastball or dunk a basketball, but I still admire the hell out of those who can.

That's why I'm perplexed by all the recent posts complaining about runout climbs. Know what? You'll gain a shitload of valuable skills by trying to figure out how to safely ascend that climb you're complaining about. Even if you don't succeed, your judgement and decision making skills on the rock will improve and that poorly protected climb you like to complain about will likely become a favorite of yours.

I'll give an example to illustrate my point. In the backwoods of upstate NY exists a small free-standing tower of rock with no easy way to the top. Now there ARE rappel anchors on top so it has been done, but there is no fixed pro on the tower and the natural pro is way funky. I've attempted this tower on three separate days and have gotten shut down each time. My last day I spent maybe an hour trying to climb the overhanging face that had a funky crack but was likely in the hard 11 or 12 range. I then threw myself at the obvious line on the slabbier face but couldn't bring myself to trust the shitty rp's to hold a (likely) fall.

Point is that I think about this lowly tower probably once a week. I SHOULD be thinking about routes like End Game on the spectacular Rockfellow group at Cochise Stronghold, but that incredibly scenic route has a bolt every bodylength and my heart rate never got over 60bpm for the entire climb. In contrast, that nameless tower in NY gets my heart rate going by just thinking about it.

That, in a nutshell, is why people get pissed when routes get retrobolted. You never know what nameless chossheap in the middle of nowhere might be someone's lifetime project. If it's seen an FA then it's off-limits.
teece303 · · Highlands Ranch, CO · Joined Dec 2012 · Points: 596

Amazingly, runout slab climbs aren't unique to any part of the world. I've led slab climbs with X ratings here in Colorado.

That has no bearing on my point. Are we done measuring dicks yet?

If you put up an X-rated slab climb in 2014, you damn well better have thought long and hard about the people that might get hurt climbing your route, and also understand that you are bolting a *public resource* that doesn't belong to you any more than it does any one else, FA or no.

And you should be consistent: if you run out your hard climbs and your easy climbs, that's one thing. If you make your hard climbs as safe as kindergarten, and your easier climbs as dangerous war, you're a douche, no two ways about it.

If you only think of yourself when bolting? Sell your drill. Now. You don't deserve it. (It's that whole public resource thing, if you're too dense to see why you should sell your drill. You don't own the rock.)

No climbing route is safe. Duh. But every route developer has a profound responsibility to make an aesthetic line that's reasonably protected for the grade given the prevailing standards of the area. (So South Platte granite can be a lot more run out than Clear Creek Gneiss, by way of example).

And we shouldn't retro-bolt routes except very, very rarely and after much deliberation, which also is why the FA has such a profound responsibility: he or she is making decisions for generations to come.

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

Measuring dicks?

Youre the one whinning

If you dont want to do a runnout climb then simply dont do the climb ... Or retreat when its pretty damn obvious when you cant see the next bolt or placement

You can whine all you want about this and that, if you feel so strongly then get off your intraweb azz, and go bolt your FA rather than whine about someone elses

Not everything is nice and laid out for you like the gym ... When you start doing long multi youll need to be confident on running out easy ground even on moderate routes

Climbing is all about risk management ... Cant manage it yourself? then dont do it

;)

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

"If you dont want to do a runnout climb then simply dont do the climb"

Bearbreeder, aren't there some bears that need breeding somewhere? ;)

Please re-read what I wrote, because you are missing some very key points that are spelled out pretty clearly.

But I'm in a bad enough mood tonight that I better stop responding.

Benjamin Brooke · · San Pedro, CA · Joined Apr 2012 · Points: 1,050
teece303 wrote:If you don't feel a PROFOUND responsibility to those that follow a route you put up, you have ZERO place to be bolting a new route, both ethically and morally. And it's just stupid that that needs to be said.
i think there is more to the "profound responsibility" of putting up a new route than simply making it G via bolts. i don't do a ton of routes, but have put up a handful. some of my regular partners are prolific developers so i see the thought that goes into new routes on a frequent basis. there is also local ethics to consider. here you don't bolt where natural pro is nearby. also, some of the slab climbs are historically run out. they are meant to be a test of technical skill and ones lead head. when we put up routes there is a balance that needs to be struck between keeping ourselves safe, honoring local ethics, and making the climb attractive to someone repeating it. most of the time we are thinking about others coming out and enjoying the route that we put so much time, money, and effort into.

i havent put up any pure sport routes, but there are bolts on a couple. they went in to protect me first and foremost. on one route we actually had a long discussion as to place the lone bolt or not. there was dubious gear nearby that someone thought was good enough but myself and another party thought was junk. we placed the bolt. i blew off the crux ripped the terrible gear and took a big whip on the bolt....which kept me from a 50' deck. some of the other lines could have a bolt but dont and are graded PG or R as they should be. taking all the pucker out of a climb is not something i want to do all the time. when i put up a route its first and foremost for me. the notion that developers are supposed to follow some set protocol making everything super safe for the community is kinda ridiculous. id say most people take other people into account, but it is only one factor of many. this is why there are protection ratings. even if the runout on a 5.10 is on the 5.8 it should be accurately graded 5.10 G (5.8R) or at least noted in a guide, or passed down verbally at the very very least...or better yet even look up at the route before you climb it. idk....i can't imagine your statement going over well with people that put up new routes. even though i can understand the example you give about strong climbers making things a horror show for moderate climbers....but who is any one person to say how things should get done? anyone that puts in the effort - the cleaning, the hardwear, etc should have ultimate say. new routing is manual labor.
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.