On 31/12/2006 uwhp510 wrote:
>There is a difference between ethics and style. Ethics is what you do
>to the route, and style is how you climb the route. Climb in whatever
>style you want.
Sorry to go off topic, but I don't think the statement above (quoted) is quite correct. Where did you get that from? Can you provide a reference? Ethics are a set of moral principles or values: eg
http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/corpaffr/publications/riscomm/riscomm_appe.shtml
There are a set of (poorly defined, not generally agreed upon, heavily argued, but loosely understood) ethics associated with the "style" of ascent as well as the "what you do to the route". The former are associated with whether an ascent can be claimed as a proper free ascent, or, further to that, what exactly can be claimed. A set of moral principles or values (ethics) underpin the characterisation of what specifically has been achieved in ascending a route - be it redpoint, onsight, flash, pinkpoint (a mostly redundant term that is now roughly substituted with "redpoint"), etc
For example
A qualitative discussion on ethics of free-climbing or what you refer to as "style", and protection and what you "do to the route"
http://www.climb.co.nz/RockClimbing/Types/Types-Of-Climbing.htm
Ethics of protection
http://www.spadout.com/wiki/index.php/Ethic
|