Climbers' Code of Ethics

Access, Rehab Projects, Derbyfests and more...
Cliff Heindel
Gumby
Gumby
Posts: 190
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 8:57 am
Location: chapel hill

Post by Cliff Heindel » Wed Apr 05, 2006 7:46 pm

Let me start with a lame apology: I should just let this thread quietly sink to the bottom of the forum, RIP. Maybe it will despite me.

I thought I made it clear that I supported Rick Weber's effort to encourage people to live and voice their values and ethical standards. I would appreciate more feedback to this point with other's interpretations of the established thread. But Rick's last post discourages me; and, not having received a response seeking some explanation on the actual points of his post, I question whether
his approach to behavior modification is working and whether it needs re-examination.

Before I specifically address the points of contention within the 'ethics' thread, there is the looming specter of personality and ego. I wish to minimize if not completely eliminate this element from the discussion, if any, an hope others will make the same effort.

Sine I have not worked out the specifics of embedding quotes piecemeal into text.....
Rick wrote:

' "Mutual respect" of what? If not others' opinions, then of what?

Accepting that someone else's opinion matters is a fundamental element of this mutual reapect you advocate preserving. It soesn't mean we necessarily have to agree. And I do respectfully
disagree with your logic. '

My apologies. I thought it obvious I was beginning with a plausible assumption that people without common courtesy must ipso facto believe. Thus, (here is the 'logic' if, like me, you were interested in Rick's respectful disagreement with mine and what logical fallacy he was adressing)
it would be an illogical conclusion to advocate for "mutual respect" unless I BELIEVED THAT OTHER'S OPINIONS MATTERED.

Now, backtracking, as Rick inverted his syllogism, I did not "find" that "ethics suck", I assumed it as mentioned previously. For perspective, note I also proposed a counter assumption.

To the point of "You have every right to rejact our code of ethics....because you don't want to accept the fact that our opinions matter to you"

And the clincher..."Just don't practice your personal brand of ..ethics at..Muir Valley"

Just so incredibly disappointing. Rick, I regret that you felt so frustrated and angry about my post. I never implied nor stated that I rejected you ethics. (Please, if anyone else
thinks I did please show me where/how). Additionally, I don't think that FROM THAT POST ALONE you can know much if anything about my personal brand of ethics.

And lastly, if anyone else thinks this is fun, stay away from me.
'really ?' -fluffy

OZ
Gumby
Gumby
Posts: 129
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 11:55 am

Post by OZ » Wed Apr 05, 2006 8:12 pm

Can an ethic be constucted of a rule?

captain static
Hippifried
Posts: 2438
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2002 2:05 pm
Location: On Yonder Mountain
Contact:

Post by captain static » Wed Apr 05, 2006 9:53 pm

Since "Freedom of the Hills" was invoked I pulled out my copy (3rd ed., 1974) and offer the follwing quote:
Ethics find their ultimate warrant for "thou shall" and "thou shall not" in the ideals of the individual and these ideals ... must find their expression in the individual's acceptance of his own limitations and sense of responsibility to the climbing community of today and tomorrow.
"Be responsible for your actions and sensitive to the concerns of other visitors and land managers. ... Your reward is the opportunity to climb in one of the most beautiful areas in this part of the country." John H. Bronaugh

User avatar
kato
Blade Master
Posts: 884
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2002 8:54 am

Post by kato » Thu Apr 06, 2006 8:27 am

Is that the sound of backpedaling? :twisted:
No chalkbag since 1995.

OZ
Gumby
Gumby
Posts: 129
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 11:55 am

Post by OZ » Thu Apr 06, 2006 1:31 pm

Sounds like the sound that a person must make to understand why another chose to hear the sound they wanted to hear. Does that sound about right?

Sunshine
Steppenwolf
Posts: 567
Joined: Sun May 02, 2004 1:20 pm
Location: To the right of Moonbeam
Contact:

Post by Sunshine » Thu Apr 06, 2006 1:41 pm

I hear you loud and clear.
So now you'd better stop and rebuild all your ruins,
For peace and trust can win the day despite of all your losing-- Zep

Cliff Heindel
Gumby
Gumby
Posts: 190
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 8:57 am
Location: chapel hill

Re: Climbers' Code of Ethics

Post by Cliff Heindel » Fri Apr 07, 2006 12:32 pm

And, turning a blind eye to aberrant behavior is, in itself, a violation one of the basic tenets of the code. When we witness an act of recklessness or carelessness that is clearly an intentional or unintentional breach of ethics, we have the obligation to bring this to the attention of the guilty person(s).

-Is this a joke?
'really ?' -fluffy

captain static
Hippifried
Posts: 2438
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2002 2:05 pm
Location: On Yonder Mountain
Contact:

Post by captain static » Fri Apr 07, 2006 2:35 pm

The way I look at it, and BTW, how it is presented in the ethics section of Mountaineering: Freedom of the Hills is the same as if I witnessed an unsafe practice. If I see someone z-clip, backclip, perform an improper belay, or other unsafe practice I will not turn a blind eye but am obligated to bring it to the attention of the individual(s) involved as I certainly don't won't to see someone get hurt. Similarly, if I witness someone acting in a manner that might jeopardize access to a particular area, I am obligated to bring this to the attention of the individual(s) involved in the interest of preserving climbing access.
"Be responsible for your actions and sensitive to the concerns of other visitors and land managers. ... Your reward is the opportunity to climb in one of the most beautiful areas in this part of the country." John H. Bronaugh

weber
Star Trek Kid
Posts: 1017
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2003 1:44 pm
Location: Indy & Wolfe Co., KY
Contact:

Re: Climbers' Code of Ethics

Post by weber » Fri Apr 07, 2006 4:09 pm

Cliff Heindel wrote:And, turning a blind eye to aberrant behavior is, in itself, a violation one of the basic tenets of the code. When we witness an act of recklessness or carelessness that is clearly an intentional or unintentional breach of ethics, we have the obligation to bring this to the attention of the guilty person(s).

-Is this a joke?
To some, perhaps. Not to me.
captain static wrote:The way I look at it, and BTW, how it is presented in the ethics section of Mountaineering: Freedom of the Hills is the same as if I witnessed an unsafe practice. If I see someone z-clip, backclip, perform an improper belay, or other unsafe practice I will not turn a blind eye but am obligated to bring it to the attention of the individual(s) involved as I certainly don't won't to see someone get hurt. Similarly, if I witness someone acting in a manner that might jeopardize access to a particular area, I am obligated to bring this to the attention of the individual(s) involved in the interest of preserving climbing access.
Well said.

Rick
We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand. - Randy Pausch
None are so old as those who have outlived enthusiasm. - Henry David Thoreau

Cliff Heindel
Gumby
Gumby
Posts: 190
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 8:57 am
Location: chapel hill

Post by Cliff Heindel » Fri Apr 07, 2006 10:02 pm

I love you guys
'really ?' -fluffy

Post Reply