Chockstone Forum

      Sponsored By
      ROCK
   HARDWARE

Chockstone Photography

Australian Landscape Prints

Chockstone Forum - General Discussion

General Climbing Discussion

Topic Date User

Ethics versus style debate continued 1-Jan-2007 At 12:50:02 PM brough

Message

The thread to which I was replying disappeared as I was mid reply. I knew that I had a tendency to ramble, but....I looked up from the computer and years had passed (Chockstone was only a dim memory). My hair had grown long and grey. I could not recall why I had embarked on the dissertation in the first place.

On 1/01/2007 BigMike wrote:
>Ethics and style?
>
>I agree with uwhp510...
>
>Ethics is what you do to a route, style is how you climb it.

Based on what? what's your underlying argument to support that statement? Where's the examples? References?

On 1/01/2007 BigMike wrote:
>
>No one is going to say it was "unethical" of you to have a rest on a piece
>of pro, or do research on a climb so that you know what you need at the
>crux, thereby "downgrading" your onsight to a flash...

What? Based on what?

Yes ascents are downgraded from onsights to flashes. If it's a first ascent, second ascent etc, or any ascent, yes this will happen. Yes, it's not a free ascent if you grab on a draw. You think this is unimportant - but what about first free ascents as an example? What underlies the simple definition of the FFA is a set of morals or principles ie ethics.

On 1/01/2007 BigMike wrote:
>"Style" is simply the manner in which you climb a route
>It would of course be unethical to claim an onsight if you merely flashed
>or redpointed ... but that's another story.

No it's not, it's exactly what we're talking about - thanks for reinforcing the point. Give me a definition of what style is, from the literature.

On 1/01/2007 BigMike wrote:
>Ethics tends to affect everyone's experience of a cliff (bolting, chipping,
>using chalk in a no-chalk area). Style is about your own approach to your
>own climbing.

You're misusing the word, again. Ethics. It's not a proper noun or a unique entitiy. Ethics are not an entity restricted to one thing and not others. Ethics don't affect anything unless applied. Ethics are a set of morals or principles that may underly a code of conduct - be it official or unofficial - in climbing it is largely unoffical. Ethics do underly the different "styles" of ascent. There are different categories of style of ascent because there are ethics underlying the description of the style of ascent. Just because my ethics underlying the style of my ascent doesn't affect you at the other end of the crag, doesn't mean the ethics don't exist. My style of ascent affects me and how I feel about myself and the climb, given my own set of ethics.

Inherent in your line of argument is a confusion about what ethics are - I'd point you to the defintion of ethics (again, mate)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics

Particularly

"ethics is the un-written law for the people to follow"

and

"may involve articulating the character or good habits that we should acquire, the duties that we should follow, or the consequences of our behavior on ourselves and others."

Therefore, the definition of ethics relates to consequences for yourself, not just for others. The cornerstone of your argument was that because climbing style doesn't affect anyone else, ethics aren't involved.

What I'm alluding to here is that individual style is a manifestation of individual ethics. Style, in anything, is an outward manifestation, behaviour, reflecting a set of underlying ethics. Ethics are a set of morals or principles that can be applied to ANYTHING.

Some climbers adhere to the strictest and purest ethics of free climbing, of which their climbing STYLE is the manifestation of their ETHICS. They won't rest on a draw, instead they will lower to the ground. Some climbers adhere to strictly ground up ETHICS, with no prior inspection from above, in their first ascents which has nothing to do explicitly with what they "do to the route". Other climbers have a different set of ethics that manifests in different behaviour. What you're saying is you don't follow any ethics regarding your style of ascent. That's OK with me.

Please can you read this article (link below) - it is a rough piece, but it alludes to ethics/principles underlying both what you do to the route and the style in which you climb

http://www.planetfear.com/article_detail.asp?a_id=138

Add this to the links above in my first post (in the disappeared/relocated thread)

On 1/01/2007 BigMike wrote:
>Although it might be considered unethical of me to AID CLIMB KACHOONG
>on a busy day with loads of punters lining up for it...

Yep, you said it. Thanks for the example. Your example alludes to something unethical in my opinion. Thanks for reinforcing the point. You can't then tell me ethics apply there and not elsewhere. Just because something else doesn't directly impinge on other people, doesn't mean ethics aren't involved (see the definition of ethics).

On 1/01/2007 BigMike wrote:
>Something I nevertheless almost feel inclined to do, as I watch people
>line up on this forum to tell Organ Pipe how he should or should not approach
>the climb.

If you chose not to adhere to any prescribed set of ethics, or recognise ethics, in your own practice of ascent, that's fine. If you think the ascent is only about your own personal style that's fine. I would propose to you again the scenario of the first ascent of a new route. What underlines the claim and acceptance of the first "ascent" (ie the first successful ascent) and whether it is a free ascent or not? The answer is a set of morals or principles. Ethics.

In addition, the links I provide below point to rankings, rules, competitions, bragging, spray, claims of ascents, pertaining to the ascent of a route, be it on rock or in the competition, be it a first ascent or a repeat etc etc which fall within the jurisdiction of a set of morals and principles, albeit losely defined and not compiled in any one place.

For example

http://www.8a.nu/site2/
http://www.uiaa.ch/index.aspx
http://climbing.com/news/hotflashes//index17.html

Similarly, someone may be predisposed to grid-bolting a wall because they have a different set of personal ethics compared to someone who prefers to use passive, natural protection.

In summary. Ethics underly both the style of ascent and the "what you do to the route". Personal ethics exist.

Cheers, cuzzy brough