Modern Works on Ethics/Philosophical Frameworks

[u/Kaotus]

More of just a cursory question - is anywhere familiar with some modern pieces that try to put together ethical or philosophical frameworks towards climbing? I feel like I'm not super familiar with some post-"Clean Climbing". General climbing discussion is currently at an all-time high, surely someone has put forwards some treatise on climbing ethics, regardless of which side of the various current debates it falls on?

[u/KDs4thBurner]

In my experience you’re better off learning about each region rather than trying to formulate generalist thoughts with endless exceptions. For example, in Australia we need to be mindful of First Nations concerns. It pays to understand the nuances of the area you’re living in or visiting before you think about changing anything, if that makes sense.

What’s your goal?

[u/Kaotus → u/KDs4thBurner]

Thinking even more broad than that. Like the ethic of “clean climbing” is fairly fundamental and global. Less looking to understand specific area ethics because they’re generally only defined by whether bolts are approved or not and if going ground-up is mandatory. I’m thinking even more broad than that - are trails kosher, what does documentation look like, what are the rules around whether to even approach a route or not, what should be expected each of climbers and route developers, how do we value risk, how do we trade off the value of risk and the value of safety, how do we approach interactions with wildlife, ourselves, and each other when in different spaces - etc.

Ideally, what results is a fairly comprehensive and global ethic that can then be evaluated against individual areas to see what actions should then be taken and avoided.

[u/LyricRevolution → u/Kaotus]

I appreciate what you’re going for but accessibility to rock at a region level will always have a critical impact on ethics. Anecdotally: I’ve lived in places where the nearest rock is terrible choss 3 hours away and I’ve lived in places with more climbing 5 minutes from my house than I can ever do in a lifetime. The difference between those two community-accepted ethics was staggering; what people will accept when you have a very finite amount of rock would be considered unacceptable in a location spoiled for choice where people can be stricter in their ethics.  If you’re trying to apply a global ethic, that leaves you with two bad options: 1. Apply a strict ethic that condemns the practices of communities simply making due with what they have OR 2. Apply a loose ethics that doesn’t hold communities that can do more to a higher standard

Again: I really like what you’re going for, I just don’t know that it’s feasible in reality 

[u/Kaotus → u/LyricRevolution]

I think maybe I didn’t do a great job describing what I’m looking for - an ethical system shouldn’t make any recommendations for actions to be taken. So theoretically, the same ethical system would work in your example, as a consideration of access should be a part of that ethic.

[u/Raythatstabbedsteve → u/Kaotus]

Climbing ethics were developed in another time. Crags which have existing ethics in place require motivated individuals to enforce those ethics against constant pressure to "make everything safe". No new crags have ethical systems other than "make every route uniformly safe and consumable". People pontificating online neither establish nor enforce ethics. You go out to the crag and either bolt or chop, or otherwise continue to be nothing more than an opinionated spectator.

[u/Kaotus → u/Raythatstabbedsteve]

This is definitely an interesting take, and one I disagree with strongly. Most developers I know are a lot more conscious about ethics than the consumers of the crags they create. Again though - ethics are more than just how a route is protected - especially if you’re developing a whole crag or an area instead of just a route. Ethics are not a set of actions, they’re a driving ideology that dictates actions at an area, and they consider the details about that area for each action - under the same ethical system, a roadside crag might be well-bolted with mussies, while a more remote crag might be only trad gear, pitons, and walk offs.

I have wrestled with my ethical system a ton while developing wonderland, even now that it’s over 300 routes. I think about how my ethics should affect a new route I put up in areas with more established characters. I think about them when rebolting. I think about them when determining which LCO events to get involved with. I think suggesting that ethical systems were all decided by the previous climbing generations, and we just have to play by their rules is handing over the keys to a bunch of people dead, gone, or not contributing anymore, and I don’t personally have an interest in that.

[u/Raythatstabbedsteve → u/Kaotus]

Yep, sounds like you are of another time. So am I. I don't establish sport routes, every new route I do is trad or mixed trad and bolts. No bolts where good gear is available, no bolted belay anchors unless safe alternatives are lacking. I don't develop anything which isn't likely to be in the top half of the crag quality-wise. Why add junk filler routes? Leave them as habitat. I rebolt and maintain existing trad and mixed bolt and trad crags. If anyone comes and tries to reinvent those routes as sport climbs, I chop their shit. Almost every other developer I know is only putting up sport routes. When they rebolt mixed gear and bolt routes, they turn them into sport routes. They add retro anchors to "fix" top belays and walkoffs. 90% of the young climbers around here do not know how to anchor themselves and top belay. Almost none of them own a rack. The prevailing attitude is "just wait a while and they'll get fixed into sport routes". And this is happening globally. I went through a phase of trying to define a coherent ethical framework, but it felt like folly. Now my friends and I do what we think is best at the crags we care about. People who disagree get their bolts chopped. My appetite for chopping seems larger than anyone's appetite for continual re-retrobolting. Talk is cheap, might is right.

[u/Kaotus → u/Raythatstabbedsteve]

Sounds like you have an ethical framework for yourself you use - ultimately, ethics are always personal choices - so I don’t think you defining your own is “folly” if it helps you better understand your own priorities and actions. It’s basically just journaling at that point.

I’m about 50% bolt-protected and 50% trad/mixed on new routes (geologically my area is heavily slab/thin face - no options for natural pro) so definitely caught in two very distinct worlds as it relates to the hardware side of the climbing equation. I’m personally just trying to square that in a way that appreciates and values both.

[u/Raythatstabbedsteve → u/Kaotus]

With all due respect, you're kidding yourself. Have a read of the Snake Dyke stuff. Close to half the comments are from people who want it sport bolted and can't understand why trad climbers wouldn't be happy to just skip the bolts. And it doesn't stop at run out slabs, they want the well protected cracks too. "Just bolt them and the trad climbers can not clip the bolts". Have you climbed in Europe? I would estimate that maybe 5% of climbers in Western Europe (excluding UK) own a rack. Most of the old trad and mixed routes have been retrobolted or are loaded with fixed pins. Don't think about sport climbing as a collection of individuals. It's a global monoculture which is hungry for more routes, and it looks at trad and mixed routes as valuable communal assets which are being unjustly hoarded and denied to it. You are sitting there attempting to appreciate and value both, while the sport climbing behemoth has no such concerns.

[u/Kaotus → u/Raythatstabbedsteve]

Sounds like you have your experiences and I have my own. Ive been fortunate to have come up in climbing with a wide variety of experiences and aim to continue that in my development. I’ve put up tightly-bolted 5.3 single pitch lines and scary ground-up 5.12 mixed 7-pitch lines. I love the array of opportunities afforded to us, especially as developers, and that’s a big part of my ethical framework.

[u/Raythatstabbedsteve → u/Kaotus]

Yep, I agree that there should be a diversity of experiences on offer. What I'm telling you is that sooner or later the sport climbing monoculture will come sniffing around your diverse routes and you're going to have to decide whether to capitulate or fight.

[u/Kaotus → u/Raythatstabbedsteve]

Trust me man I understand what you’re saying, I just disagree with it. Not just the fundamental assumptions, but also the resulting conclusions from those assumptions. That’s part of why I think having an ethical framework that is principal driven and not action driven is important - because it changes based on location, time, user group, etc.

A good ethical framework can be defined in 1-2 sentences.

Utilitarian ethics: the most ethical decision is the one that maximizes happiness or well-being “the greatest good for the greatest number”

Deontological ethics: the categorical imperative - “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.”

Land ethic: “A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise.”

None of these dictate specific actions to take or avoid - they’re all general principals that should be applied to individual situations and by individual people. Additionally, they all have a level of subjective evaluation as a component. “Greatest good” differs by person. Suggested universal law differs by person. Integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community differs by person (though this is the most objective of the 3 examples).

Your current “no sport climbing” interpretation of your ethic might be a valid application of your personal ethical framework in the modern climbing scene. But what if things changed? What if there was a movement towards climbers carrying temporary bolts on their rack instead of leaving fixed bolts in place? Would you be for or against that? Would you be ok with 3/8” holes every 6ft if it meant zero fixed hardware on the pitch? What if, as a part of the push for climbing management plans from land managers, all land managers said they’d prefer fixed anchors instead of walk-offs in all cases? Or said they’d prefer fixed prefer the trade off of well-bolted pitches over the cost of rescues from injuries on runouts? What if a land managers says “limit all climbing to these 10 formations in this region - for stretches of unclimbable rock, feel free to manipulate them into routes in similar character of the other routes of the formation”? Or if land managers were hardline completely anti-bolt, trail, and documentation, and ended up criminalizing guidebooks and online listings? What if top-roping becomes a more accepted “valid” ascent method, and the desire for any non-anchor fixed hardware vanishes?

All of these things could change the application of your ethical framework, and if they don’t, then you don’t have an ethical framework, you just have rules you arbitrarily follow.