Sponsored By
ROCK
HARDWARE
Chockstone Photography
Australian Landscape Prints |
Chockstone Forum - General Discussion
General Climbing Discussion
| Author |
|
|||||
12:50:02 PM |
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 |
|||||
1:20:07 PM |
Kachoong topic was moved to the Crag and Route section brough. From the planet Fear topic you linked. "2. Do not mislead others over what you have climbed Lying about what you have done, or the style in which you did it will cost you the respect of your peers, and if someone relies on misleading information you give regarding the difficulty of a climb, you could be held responsible." If Organ Pipe wants to get all the beta, gear pre placed etc it is their perogative. As long as their actions do not damage or alter the climb who are we to judge? The concerns about ethics and this ascent would only be if OP claimed the ascent as an onsight. One of the things about climbing which drew me in and draws in others is the lack of rules and bureaucracy. If I want to grovel up manky offwidths in the depths of the Grampians pulling on gear as I go and enjoy this experience so be it! I have not damaged/altered the rock nor reported my ascents who does this impact? If a climber wants to improve, they will do so quicker by getting on harder routes and climbing these in poor 'style' than spending years always saving each route for the onsight. My more memorable ascents have been my harder onsights, but playing and working on other routes as a means to get to these ends are I feel justified... Also hard redpoints are also satisfying as the final ascent is a culmination or hard work to link moves at or above your limit to get the final ascent. Stop judging people and just go climbing! |
|||||
1:26:09 PM |
I don't think Brough is judging, he's just exploring the semantics of climbing parlance... I'll be formulating a reply, once my head stops hurting .... |
|||||
1:27:00 PM |
On 1/01/2007 dalai wrote: >Stop judging people and just go climbing! 1. Please re-read my post. There was no judging of anyone, it was just a debate about a point made by someone else prior. You'll notice that I was careful in my post to point out that I don't personally mind if others don't apply ethics to their actions on the rock if it doesn't affect others. I carefully made no judgement, in fact no reference, to Organ Pipe and his dilemma. Hence my apology, in my initial post, for going off topic. My following arguments addressed specific quotes. There was no judgment there. Can you please read the post before you respond to it. On 1/01/2007 dalai wrote: >Also hard redpoints are also satisfying as the final ascent is a culmination or hard work to link moves at or above your limit to get the final ascent. 2. Sorry Dalai, you've dipped your foot in the water with that point. You've used the words "final ascent" and "redpoint" - words which, by their very existence, reflect a set of morals or principles (ethics - not bureaucracy or rules) underlying the ascent. Tell me what constitutes a redpoint? Final ascent? First free ascent? Where did these terms come from? From a set of principles defining free climbing. On 1/01/2007 dalai wrote: >nor reported my ascents who does this impact? 3. And again. I must take you up on that point. I had already argued that just because it didn't affect anyone else that did not preclude the existence of ethics. Re-read my post and the definition of ethics I provided. Your statement tells me that your ethics are: if it doesn't affect anyone else, or no one else finds out, it doesn't matter. That's your ethics, fine, no problems, no judgement. That's different to what my ethics would guide me to do, though. No problems! On 1/01/2007 dalai wrote: >Stop judging people and just go climbing! 4. Obviously I'm here posting because I can't go climbing. Thanks for telling me to go climbing, mate If you think my post is a waste of time and don't want to read it in entirety, that's fine with me, it's a long, perhaps esoteric, piece, perhaps misplaced here. But perhaps don't reply to it in the expectation that I'm not going to take you up on your points. |
|||||
1:43:55 PM |
It's all a bit early on a New Year's Day for this, and it's 20 years since I studied philosophy at uni, and I'm at work today, so I can't dedicate too much time to what appears to be a rapidly evolving argument about semantics (see what you started Organ Pipe!). But since you've taken the trouble to post such a detailed response, a few points in reply. We're getting hung up on words here so let's go to the good old Macquarie: ethics plural noun 1. a system of moral principles, by which human actions and proposals may be judged good or bad or right or wrong. 2. the rules of conduct recognised in respect of a particular class of human actions - medical ethics. 3. moral principles, as of an individual. style noun 1. a particular kind, sort, or type, as with reference to form, appearance, or character. 2. a particular, distinctive, or characteristic mode of action. 3. a mode of living, as with respect to expense or display. So, it might be bad style to grab a draw, but hardly immoral? Interestingly, the link you urged me to read, from planet fear, seems to draw a similar distinction: "There are two basic rules in climbing, which form the basis of all ethics, they are: 1. Do not alter what you are climbing 2. Do not mislead others over what you have climbed." Of course ethics get more messy when they are being formulated, for example, when a cliff is being developed as trad and someone decides to come a-bolting... And yes, ethics do inform style, but I think most climbers are happy to distinguish between the former as ``actions that affect others' enjoyment'' and the latter as ``how you conduct your own climbing experience''. But this is all hard work for a new year's day... I leave you with the last word on the subject, by good old Lewis Carroll ... a crucial quote for all arguments over language use': 'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.' 'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.' 'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.' |
|||||
1:56:58 PM |
On 1/01/2007 BigMike wrote: > 2. the rules of conduct recognised in respect of a particular class of human actions - >medical ethics. Climbing ethics. Bolting ethics. Free climbing ethics. Aid climbing ethics. They all exist as underlying classes of human actions On 1/01/2007 BigMike wrote: >So, it might be bad style to grab a draw, but hardly immoral? It goes against the code of conduct and principles (ethics) of free climbing. It's not free climbing, it therefore does not classify as a FFA, pinkpoint, redpoint, flash or onsight. >And yes, ethics do inform style, but I think most climbers are happy to >distinguish between the former as ``actions that affect others' enjoyment'' >and the latter as ``how you conduct your own climbing experience''. Based on their own personal ethics >But this is all hard work for a new year's day... Yes indeedy |
|||||
2:42:54 PM |
Right... 1. So, this discursive essay into ethics was prompted by Organ Pipe asking for beta to help him flash Kachoong, and then other people calling his climbing ethics into question... If he'd said, ``Shurrup, my Kachoong attempt is perfectly in accordance with climbing ethics, subset flashes, subset trad, subset gear placement, subset online research'', he would have been fine. 2. If I go and add five bolts to Kachoong tomorrow, and some sticky beak calls my actions into question, I shall reply, ``this process is ethically acceptable if your ethics are bolt-based, which mine are'' ... and refer them to you. :-) 3. Herewith, the suggested 2007 Chockstone Overriding Climber's Ethic: ``Don't call others' actions ethically unacceptible unless said actions directly affect YOUR climbing experience, current or future.'' 4. Anyone who wishes to also adopt Big Mike's guiding ethic - ``I am ethically opposed to hitting the deck at speed'' - is welcome. |
|||||
3:03:19 PM |
Big Mike wrote: >Right... That's all OK with me, although I thought we had the startings of a decent technical debate outside of the Organ Pipe drama, and this debate was best placed in it's own thread. We generally don't call people's actions (driven by their ethics) into question unless they affect others. That's why I've been at pains to point out I have no problems with Organ Pipe's (lack of (I jest)) ethics. My issue was with uwhp510's (I think) erroneous statement about style and ethics - independent of Organ Pipe. 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. I'm happy for people to climb in whatever style they want, I mean who am I to comment and what does it matter? But I think the uwhp510 statement was/is technically incorrect and is a misuse of words. For the reasons I've stated above the uwhp510 statement is grammatically incorrect, although I agree with most of Big Mike's points in the fallout in this thread. At the end of the day, even if the actions of one do not affect others, the actions can still be the result of ethics, can involve ethics, be informed by ethics. Big Mike himself said it - climbing style can be informed by climbing ethics. |
|||||
3:06:35 PM |
Let's you and I go find uwhp50 and give him a good kicking for wasting our time... |
|||||
3:13:48 PM |
Big Mike wrote: >Let's you and I go find uwhp50 and give him a good kicking for wasting our time... Yeh, an old school touch up ;) Hopefully this, on New Years, is not comparable to the sad and symbolic demise/destruction of the Christmas thread I notice that someone is sleeping. Perhaps we don't want to disturb him  |
|||||
3:48:46 PM |
Borough - my comment on judging wasn't directed at you per se but a carry over from the Kachoong thread. I also enjoy debate and never suggest another persons view is 'a waste of time'. It was just appearing that people were over analysing and being critical in particular of Organ Pipe for Googling pictures and posting his question about Kachoong protection prior to an ascent. Yes I do follow the general climbing ethics, but I don't feel it's my right to provide judgement on OP's methods to making an ascent. If he gets pleasure on taking the approach of gathering any available information first and then dogging his way up the route that's fine with me... >Your statement tells me that your ethics are: if it doesn't affect anyone else, >or no one else finds out, it doesn't matter It's not about someone finding out or not - but whether I might get enjoyment out of just being outdoors in the vertical perhaps french freeing some route. By the way don't climb such routes and in such style but was just trying to make an example ;-) |
|||||
4:46:56 PM |
just reflecting perceptions here, OHM dalai Padme Hom "One of the things about climbing which drew me in and draws in others is the lack of rules and bureaucracy" snip " you could be held responsible." snip "I feel justified" snip "to judge" snip "If a climber wants to improve, they will do so quicker by" snip "grovel up manky offwidths in the depths of the Grampians pulling on gear as I go and enjoy this experience" snip "?" snip "Also hard redpoints" snip "is a culmination" snip "above your limit" snip "to get the final ascent." snip "As long as their actions do not damage or alter the climb who are we to judge." snip my comment on judging wasn't directed at you per se snip "but I don't feel it's my right to provide judgement" |
|||||
5:45:55 PM |
If I go and add five bolts to Kachoong tomorrow, snip I shall reply, ``this process is ethically acceptable snip Don't call others' actions ethically unacceptible unless said actions directly affect YOUR climbing experience snip Right.. "lets you and I go and find uwhp510 and give him a good kicking for wasting our time" Chill out Mike, dont be so agro. |
|||||
8:27:55 PM |
On 1/01/2007 brough wrote: >But I think the uwhp510 statement >was/is technically incorrect and is a misuse of words. For the reasons >I've stated above the uwhp510 statement is grammatically incorrect, I bet you dazzle all tha wimmenz with that sexy, anal retentive, attention to grammatical detail. I wish I was you. |
|||||
8:42:21 PM |
On 1/01/2007 uwhp510/piggy wrote: >I bet you dazzle all tha wimmenz with that sexy, anal retentive, attention >to grammatical detail. I wish I was you. That's a bit harsh eh? But I think I can see where you're coming from, sort of. I'm sorry the argument ended with you being singled out, it wasn't personal. Now you're upset, judging by the (mild) personal insults. May I suggest the following. Post what you want, mate, because this forum is largely a free for all. However, if this issue we've been debating matters to you, to the point that you are upset and abusive (as is the case), structure your arguments properly and put some effort into reasoning them in the first place. Otherwise, deal with the consequences, which in this case was only someone taking you up on a point you had made, and providing reasons why. In another thread, uwhp510/piggy wrote: >pack some cotton wool around your glass ego if you can't hack a bit of critisism via the internet Could be a good time to take a dose of your own advice, perhaps accompanied by a modest helping of humble pie |
|||||
11:31:00 AM |
It's okay bro, I'm not upset in the least and didn't mean to come across as (too) abusive. Just amused at the grammar nit picking (diz is d@ internetz yo... ) and also the finiky dictionary definitions and all, especially since you agree with the intention of what I was saying but for some reason have a problem with the particular words. (ps I reject your humble pie and serve you up a nice hot bowl of whoop arse..... SNAP!) |
|||||
2:34:23 PM |
classic movie quote "how can i be anally retentive when i don't have an anus?" | |||||
6:05:12 PM |
I was topropping a 22 a while back, this grade was beyond my average climbing ability, and I managed to scramble up with two rests and I edged on a bolt because I couldnt get the smear needed to pull the lip of the roof. I am still heaps proud of my efforts and related to anyone who wanted to hear(or didnt want to hear) my mildly funny ascent story. including the bolt aide move. My climb didnt hurt anyone, didnt alter the state of the climb and got a great round of laughter and applause when i desperatly slapped the anchors at the top. I am the first to admit I havnt ticked the climb. but I have it down in my guide as completed with 2 rests and an aide. What does Ethics and style have to say about my climb? are the purists out there annoyed with me? My style was woeful, my ethics were questionable(I stood on that bolt with a smile on my lips and an evil glint in my eyes) Yet that climb helped pull me out of the 18 to 20 plataued rut I was in. So ethically and styley(is that a word?) my climb was bad, but personally it was good. Which of these two factors wins out? should I be ashamed? |
|||||
6:19:26 PM |
The story you have just related is acted out every weekend at most crags. Strong climbers rarely go from route to route to route ticking away. Most of the time they are sitting around the base or hanging half way up. Usually on lead, but whatever. Getting on harder climbs is a sure fire way to gain confidence in knowing what you can and can't do. Well done. (just try not to step on too many bolts esp carrots - it probably doesn't do them any good). |
|||||
6:21:27 PM |
The style in which you climbed the route is as you described. Your ethic is to be honest about how you climbed the route and not to misrepresent it. Do what you do and be honest about it, and there's no harm done. There are more than a few 'cutting edge' routes at Arapiles and other places that were ascended in a style not altogether removed from what you have described. The difference being that the climber has sold that as a 'clean first ascent'. Same style, different ethics. I can't help but think that given all the ills in the world today that this sort of debate is just a little self-indulgent. This is all really just a piddly storm in an insignificant teacup. |
| There are 43 messages in this topic. |
Home | Guide | Gallery | Tech Tips | Articles | Reviews | Dictionary | Forum | Links | About | Search
Chockstone Photography | Landscape Photography Australia | Australian Landscape Photography | Landscape Photos Australia
Please read the full disclaimer before using any information contained on these pages.
Australian Panoramic |
Australian Coast |
Australian Mountains |
Australian Countryside |
Australian Waterfalls |
Australian Lakes |
Australian Cities |
Australian Macro |
Australian Wildlife
Landscape Photo |
Landscape Photography |
Landscape Photography Australia |
Fine Art Photography |
Wilderness Photography |
Nature Photo |
Australian Landscape Photo |
Stock Photography Australia |
Landscape Photos |
Panoramic Photos |
Panoramic Photography Australia |
Australian Landscape Photography |
High Country Mountain Huts |
Mothers Day Gifts |
Gifts for Mothers Day |
Mothers Day Gift Ideas |
Ideas for Mothers Day |
Wedding Gift Ideas |
Christmas Gift Ideas |
Fathers Day Gifts |
Gifts for Fathers Day |
Fathers Day Gift Ideas |
Ideas for Fathers Day |
Landscape Prints |
Landscape Poster |
Limited Edition Prints |
Panoramic Photo |
Buy Posters |
Poster Prints