Right nice thinking and development. I wonder what you would make of the following simple situation:
One day, some 45 years ago in the Mont-Blanc range,I had taken two friends, a married couple of young English climbers, up the traverse of the Devil's Needles. After having completed the traverse quite fast,the last few pitches, a wall and a ridge leading to the summit of the Mont Blanc du Tacul were easy climbing but the rock was so incredibly rotten that it was impossible to belay. I decided to unrope and let my friends decide if they wanted to keep their rope on or not. My decision was clearly taken on my judging that anyone of us falling would mean 3 dead! So better 1 or 2 dead than 3. They kept their rope on and we all made it. I was no guide but I had clearly the responsibility of their safety and they understood my decision and accepted it. However, it would have been a much easier one to make if I had been with a proper climbing partner as I experienced in several other occasions. Roping is for protection, when it is more dangerous to be roped, take it off!
Another point. I like your development of Joe and Simon's dramatic event on Siula Grande, but you should also consider it from another point of view: Both, Joe and Simon were youngsters then and both made a series of basic mountaineering mistakes which caused their drama. They were very lucky to get away with it and blaming Simon is just nonsense. If youngsters did not make mistakes, they would not be youngsters! Of course, sometimes as my es climbing master, George Livanos told me: 'Great boldness makes short careers!'So one must learn from one's mistakes to stay alive.
It looks to me that both Joe and Simon understood this perfectly and learned well from their ordeal.
Note that I like what Joe writes and I personally don't mind at all the mountaineering mistakes they then made to appreciate 'Touching the Void' to the point that I just translated in French his latest novel 'The Sound of Gravity'. Quite a gripping novel!
Groups of disparate skill are problematic like that, and the temptation for a psychological belay can be strong. i've definitely short-roped across ground that i should have unroped for, but then i've also seen climbing partners turn around or become very nervous on low-5th class ground without a rope that i had no problem soloing.
I think that is the consensus around Touching the Void, few really blame Yates for what he did, and if anyone was going to it would be Simpson, given that he survived no one else really has a right. I did wonder when he claimed, i think it was in The Beckoning Silence, that all mountaineering accidents were directly linked to mistakes. didn't he say theirs was not bringing enough fuel? at that point you can list any minor circumstance that would have changed things (i.e. having an extra picket, keeping a tighter belay, selecting a different peak). I guess i tend to err on the side of 'shit happens,' sometimes things just go wrong and no one is really to blame for it.
Simpson's climbing career scares me though, this was the third of four or five near-death incidents he somehow lived through.
Frankly, this rather 'theoretical' and 'philosophical' article, referring to rather obvious media covered stories like "Touching the void", appears like arm chair alpinism to me.
It is well known among experienced mountaineers that there is a trade off when deciding to rope up or not. Ericvola is pointing that out too.
There are innumerable accidents in which wrong application of roping caused a whole party to be dragged to its death by the fall of a single member. Often this is not clear to the broader public.
There have been several studies on this matter too. For the moment I can refer to a couple of German and Dutch ones. Use http://translate.google.com when necessary.
- http://alpenverein-offenburg.avenit.de/files/upload/Eine%20Schicksalhafte%20Verbindung.pdf
Note that a quarter of the accidents happened being dragged along.
- http://www.alpinerecreation.com/pdf/ShortRopeDeutsch.pdf
This is brief in text, but it has some very clear images that speak for themselves.
The relative safety of climbing with or without a rope is not what i was talking about. obviously there are times when people succumb to the psychological comfort of being roped when it is unsafe to do so, and non-climbers rarely understand the technical complexities of that distinction. what i was looking at was the ethical and epistemological issues that attend the formation and breakdown of rope teams. i could have used several stories of my own but felt that would be a breach of trust with those they involve.
this article is very theoretical and very philosophical, this was my purpose, this continues to be my purpose, to analyze mountaineering in a philosophically rigorous manner. At least once a week I go out to the mountains and often am at the brink of a fatal accident, so do thousands of other climbers in the Pacific Northwest where mountain rescue is haphazard at best (the Mt Rainier park service called us a month after our trip to find out if we had gotten down alive). We do this so casually because we are not really thinking about it, we push it to the back of our minds until something bad happens. I think it is high time we actually owned up to the severity of our actions and explored how we are able to do such a ethically, epistemologically and metaphysically loaded activity.
the term "armchair alpinism" is a dismissive gesture given by climbers who don't want to deal with their actions being questioned. You don't have to be a Vietnam vet to analyze the ethics of the war, and you don't have to have been on a climb to understand what was going on.
Thank you for posting this, and for all the effort that went into writing it. I'm afraid that frighteningly vague relativism is all we may ever have regarding this issue, since no general ethical principle will be both broad enough to be universally accepted, yet also specific enough to address all the radically different situations faced by alpine climbers.
I'm glad you pushed back on the "armchair alpinism" comment. Through the insights and thought presented in the article, it's clear to me that you have more than just token experience with mountaineering. I do, however, understand the poster's frustration with such "armchair alpinism." For whatever reason, it seems that when it comes to mountaineering (especially in its extreme forms) the people with the least experience often have the loudest voices and the strongest opinions.
Whenever I've been part of a roped team, I assume an attitude that I would be willing to risk my life for the opportunity to save the life (or lives) of other team members. Accepted as a part of this is the realization that any error made by any member of the team translates to additional, though somewhat equalized, risk for all. The problem with searching for a philosophical code of ethics is that ethics attempt to polarize the gray area into absolute blacks and whites. If every possible climbing situation were known, then this would be a feasible task, but it is probable that such a 'canon' of standardized climbing situations will never exist.
Thanks for the support, i figured with the kind of articles i've been posting someone was bound to level the criticism sooner or later (though when i think of true armchair alpinism i think of old british aristocratic Alpine Club guys yelling about german ironmongery). It is true that i am not on the level of the climbers i write about, in 5-10 years who knows, but i really don't have that much experience with technical climbing.
I want to believe that a rigorous ethics does not have to be a moral code, that our relationship with other people does not have to be defined by a list of prohibitions, though i'm not sure what this would look like.
"...two linked by a rope is safer than one..." I have been on climbs where roping together was more dangerous than free-soloing -- and I have been on climbs where my partners have died as a result [of the rope]. Is rope climbing really about safety, when we undertake climbs where taking safety precautions is actually more danagerous than not?
Right. Exactly my point too. Moreover, such an urgent choice of life and death makes it pretty irrelevant what Plato would have to say about roped climbing("Huh?!").
But you know what? We can always ask ourselves whether we really are falling, or only THINK that we are falling, 'philosophically'. The answer might come within seconds, when we stop thinking, actually. Period.
I believe I adequately addressed the issue of psychological protection in roped climbing.
my statement "even a non-climber could intuit that two linked by a rope is safer than one" refers to common sense, not the much more complex reality.
How the western philosophical tradition bears on roped climbing matters despite the latter often containing urgent life or death situations - recall that Plato's first dialogue was Socrates talking to Euthyphro on the way to the trial at which he was condemned to death.
Jfaub - Dec 23, 2012 3:07 pm - Voted 10/10
Great article!Nice to see someone who links Rousseau and Locke to climbing! Scholarly debate and mountaineering. Awesome.
Cheers,
Joel
ozarkmac - Dec 24, 2012 9:03 am - Voted 10/10
a wonderful conrtibution...Thanks for posting!
p.s. - academic standards need not apply on SP.
Alberto Rampini - Dec 24, 2012 10:18 am - Voted 10/10
Very interesting article!Many thanks for sharing how philosophy can be related to mountaineering.
alberto
triyoda - Dec 25, 2012 4:06 pm - Hasn't voted
Nice workReally enjoyed reading your article. Very thought provoking.
surgent - Jan 3, 2013 11:31 am - Hasn't voted
Enjoyed the readingYou put a lot of thought into this.
ericvola - Jan 8, 2013 1:26 pm - Voted 10/10
When to unropeRight nice thinking and development. I wonder what you would make of the following simple situation:
One day, some 45 years ago in the Mont-Blanc range,I had taken two friends, a married couple of young English climbers, up the traverse of the Devil's Needles. After having completed the traverse quite fast,the last few pitches, a wall and a ridge leading to the summit of the Mont Blanc du Tacul were easy climbing but the rock was so incredibly rotten that it was impossible to belay. I decided to unrope and let my friends decide if they wanted to keep their rope on or not. My decision was clearly taken on my judging that anyone of us falling would mean 3 dead! So better 1 or 2 dead than 3. They kept their rope on and we all made it. I was no guide but I had clearly the responsibility of their safety and they understood my decision and accepted it. However, it would have been a much easier one to make if I had been with a proper climbing partner as I experienced in several other occasions. Roping is for protection, when it is more dangerous to be roped, take it off!
Another point. I like your development of Joe and Simon's dramatic event on Siula Grande, but you should also consider it from another point of view: Both, Joe and Simon were youngsters then and both made a series of basic mountaineering mistakes which caused their drama. They were very lucky to get away with it and blaming Simon is just nonsense. If youngsters did not make mistakes, they would not be youngsters! Of course, sometimes as my es climbing master, George Livanos told me: 'Great boldness makes short careers!'So one must learn from one's mistakes to stay alive.
It looks to me that both Joe and Simon understood this perfectly and learned well from their ordeal.
Note that I like what Joe writes and I personally don't mind at all the mountaineering mistakes they then made to appreciate 'Touching the Void' to the point that I just translated in French his latest novel 'The Sound of Gravity'. Quite a gripping novel!
Best
jacobsmith - Jan 8, 2013 8:53 pm - Hasn't voted
Re: When to unropeGroups of disparate skill are problematic like that, and the temptation for a psychological belay can be strong. i've definitely short-roped across ground that i should have unroped for, but then i've also seen climbing partners turn around or become very nervous on low-5th class ground without a rope that i had no problem soloing.
I think that is the consensus around Touching the Void, few really blame Yates for what he did, and if anyone was going to it would be Simpson, given that he survived no one else really has a right. I did wonder when he claimed, i think it was in The Beckoning Silence, that all mountaineering accidents were directly linked to mistakes. didn't he say theirs was not bringing enough fuel? at that point you can list any minor circumstance that would have changed things (i.e. having an extra picket, keeping a tighter belay, selecting a different peak). I guess i tend to err on the side of 'shit happens,' sometimes things just go wrong and no one is really to blame for it.
Simpson's climbing career scares me though, this was the third of four or five near-death incidents he somehow lived through.
mtneering - Jan 11, 2013 9:22 pm - Hasn't voted
wowgreat read
ccaissie - Jan 16, 2013 5:53 pm - Hasn't voted
Le Mont AnalogueThis is suggested reading for those who make the metaphorical leap from mountain climbing and the inner journey.
By Rene Daumal
jacobsmith - Jan 17, 2013 1:12 am - Hasn't voted
Re: Le Mont AnalogueI actually read that a couple months ago. I felt it was interesting, but very incomplete. i would like to know where he would have taken it.
mike_lindacher - Jan 16, 2013 8:54 pm - Voted 10/10
.. right on ...again, right on ...
Capricorn - Jan 21, 2013 8:55 am - Voted 2/10
Yes, being unroped can be SAFERFrankly, this rather 'theoretical' and 'philosophical' article, referring to rather obvious media covered stories like "Touching the void", appears like arm chair alpinism to me.
It is well known among experienced mountaineers that there is a trade off when deciding to rope up or not. Ericvola is pointing that out too.
There are innumerable accidents in which wrong application of roping caused a whole party to be dragged to its death by the fall of a single member. Often this is not clear to the broader public.
There have been several studies on this matter too. For the moment I can refer to a couple of German and Dutch ones. Use http://translate.google.com when necessary.
- http://alpenverein-offenburg.avenit.de/files/upload/Eine%20Schicksalhafte%20Verbindung.pdf
Note that a quarter of the accidents happened being dragged along.
- http://www.alpinerecreation.com/pdf/ShortRopeDeutsch.pdf
This is brief in text, but it has some very clear images that speak for themselves.
- http://nkbv.nl/fileupload/Kenniscentrum/Alpinisme/2009-03_Meesleurongelukken.pdf
jacobsmith - Jan 21, 2013 1:47 pm - Hasn't voted
Re: Yes, being unroped can be SAFERThe relative safety of climbing with or without a rope is not what i was talking about. obviously there are times when people succumb to the psychological comfort of being roped when it is unsafe to do so, and non-climbers rarely understand the technical complexities of that distinction. what i was looking at was the ethical and epistemological issues that attend the formation and breakdown of rope teams. i could have used several stories of my own but felt that would be a breach of trust with those they involve.
this article is very theoretical and very philosophical, this was my purpose, this continues to be my purpose, to analyze mountaineering in a philosophically rigorous manner. At least once a week I go out to the mountains and often am at the brink of a fatal accident, so do thousands of other climbers in the Pacific Northwest where mountain rescue is haphazard at best (the Mt Rainier park service called us a month after our trip to find out if we had gotten down alive). We do this so casually because we are not really thinking about it, we push it to the back of our minds until something bad happens. I think it is high time we actually owned up to the severity of our actions and explored how we are able to do such a ethically, epistemologically and metaphysically loaded activity.
the term "armchair alpinism" is a dismissive gesture given by climbers who don't want to deal with their actions being questioned. You don't have to be a Vietnam vet to analyze the ethics of the war, and you don't have to have been on a climb to understand what was going on.
regolithe - Jan 21, 2013 7:51 pm - Voted 10/10
Re: Yes, being unroped can be SAFERThank you for posting this, and for all the effort that went into writing it. I'm afraid that frighteningly vague relativism is all we may ever have regarding this issue, since no general ethical principle will be both broad enough to be universally accepted, yet also specific enough to address all the radically different situations faced by alpine climbers.
I'm glad you pushed back on the "armchair alpinism" comment. Through the insights and thought presented in the article, it's clear to me that you have more than just token experience with mountaineering. I do, however, understand the poster's frustration with such "armchair alpinism." For whatever reason, it seems that when it comes to mountaineering (especially in its extreme forms) the people with the least experience often have the loudest voices and the strongest opinions.
Whenever I've been part of a roped team, I assume an attitude that I would be willing to risk my life for the opportunity to save the life (or lives) of other team members. Accepted as a part of this is the realization that any error made by any member of the team translates to additional, though somewhat equalized, risk for all. The problem with searching for a philosophical code of ethics is that ethics attempt to polarize the gray area into absolute blacks and whites. If every possible climbing situation were known, then this would be a feasible task, but it is probable that such a 'canon' of standardized climbing situations will never exist.
jacobsmith - Jan 22, 2013 2:18 am - Hasn't voted
Re: Yes, being unroped can be SAFERThanks for the support, i figured with the kind of articles i've been posting someone was bound to level the criticism sooner or later (though when i think of true armchair alpinism i think of old british aristocratic Alpine Club guys yelling about german ironmongery). It is true that i am not on the level of the climbers i write about, in 5-10 years who knows, but i really don't have that much experience with technical climbing.
I want to believe that a rigorous ethics does not have to be a moral code, that our relationship with other people does not have to be defined by a list of prohibitions, though i'm not sure what this would look like.
Sierra Ledge Rat - Jan 24, 2013 6:19 am - Hasn't voted
huh? what did he say?Locke is one of my favs (:
"...two linked by a rope is safer than one..." I have been on climbs where roping together was more dangerous than free-soloing -- and I have been on climbs where my partners have died as a result [of the rope]. Is rope climbing really about safety, when we undertake climbs where taking safety precautions is actually more danagerous than not?
Capricorn - Jan 25, 2013 6:05 pm - Voted 2/10
Re: huh? what did he say?Right. Exactly my point too. Moreover, such an urgent choice of life and death makes it pretty irrelevant what Plato would have to say about roped climbing("Huh?!").
But you know what? We can always ask ourselves whether we really are falling, or only THINK that we are falling, 'philosophically'. The answer might come within seconds, when we stop thinking, actually. Period.
jacobsmith - Jan 26, 2013 1:23 am - Hasn't voted
Re: huh? what did he say?I believe I adequately addressed the issue of psychological protection in roped climbing.
my statement "even a non-climber could intuit that two linked by a rope is safer than one" refers to common sense, not the much more complex reality.
How the western philosophical tradition bears on roped climbing matters despite the latter often containing urgent life or death situations - recall that Plato's first dialogue was Socrates talking to Euthyphro on the way to the trial at which he was condemned to death.