Posted: Thu Jun 24, 2010 4:52 pm
What is it about climbing/mountaineering that makes a person believe that he can check his personal responsibility at the trailhead? Are the mountains some magical place where the rules of society are suspended in order to leave you free of all responsibility to pursue whatever path you want? I’d like to see a map of those magical places (not really sure where/how the geographical lines get drawn -- which mountains are exempt? How about mere hills? Is there an elevation/gradient rule?).
I understand (and agree) that climbers and mountaineers don’t want “flatlanders” deciding what’s right and wrong because of the misperception that ALL such activities are negligent or worse. And I understand that it can be difficult in certain circumstances to determine what is “negligent,” “grossly negligent,” or “reckless” -- depending on which standard you are applying and for what purpose (i.e., paying for rescues vs. legal liability for stupidity-induced-injuries). But just because a standard may be hard to apply (and there is disagreement about which standard applies and who should apply it) doesn’t mean that here should be no standard at all. We apply such difficult standards all the time in the non-magical world of the flatlands. Being subject to such standards is part of society.
Why the exemption -- because this is a site about climbing/mountaineering and we are all bias? Or is there really a valid distinction between a mountain idiot and a city idiot that gives the mountain idiot a free pass to do as he pleases? I think some of the participants on this thread have taken the phrase "freedom of the hills" a little too literally. (I think there’s actually an argument that a climber/mountaineer should be held to a higher standard because he operates in an area of higher risks to himself and others).
I understand (and agree) that climbers and mountaineers don’t want “flatlanders” deciding what’s right and wrong because of the misperception that ALL such activities are negligent or worse. And I understand that it can be difficult in certain circumstances to determine what is “negligent,” “grossly negligent,” or “reckless” -- depending on which standard you are applying and for what purpose (i.e., paying for rescues vs. legal liability for stupidity-induced-injuries). But just because a standard may be hard to apply (and there is disagreement about which standard applies and who should apply it) doesn’t mean that here should be no standard at all. We apply such difficult standards all the time in the non-magical world of the flatlands. Being subject to such standards is part of society.
Why the exemption -- because this is a site about climbing/mountaineering and we are all bias? Or is there really a valid distinction between a mountain idiot and a city idiot that gives the mountain idiot a free pass to do as he pleases? I think some of the participants on this thread have taken the phrase "freedom of the hills" a little too literally. (I think there’s actually an argument that a climber/mountaineer should be held to a higher standard because he operates in an area of higher risks to himself and others).