this was the issue:

1) the intent is certainly nice, 2) the gouger doesn’t add anything to the problem (or make it technically easier, but 3) it’s still rock manipulation.

what i really wanted this post to do initially was look at the connection between aesthetics, intentionality, and our desire to live in the context of ethics.

That’s fair, I guess. The act of climbing on rocks alters them. Maybe a better standard there is to not alter the rock in any way except by climbing on it. That allows you to climb but doesn’t admit chipping and other intentional rock-altering.

My ethic kinda boils down to trying not to fuck anything up too bad. You know, generally be nice and stuff. Sure, it’s not intellectually rigorous, but it worked for Jesus (he came up with the golden rule, right?).

i’m not sure the world lacks tabula rasa people. reading development plans and legal decisions regarding mountaintop removal in appalachia suggests quite the opposite. in fact, development itself is organized around an infinitely fungible nature.

universality is the standard for ethical inscription? while i certainly agree with your three baseline tenets, i can’t help but see the infinite slippage when applying them to specific practices. they work well as transcendent (but alas, unobtainable) forms i guess, but i’m hard-pressed to imagine climbing without altering the rock or running a bit roughshod over nature. like i pointed out – the entire game exists only by virtue of colonial exploitation of/in/over nature.

yeah. the move to solipsism is pretty easy given its almost perfect partnership with rampant consumerism. (i mean, aren’t people encouraged to be oblivious?)

yes. climbing is most definitely NOT an equal opportunity sport.

A couple of thoughts spring immediately to mind. Think about the categorical imperative. Can I will my actions to be universal? A few that might pass the test.

1. Do not hurt, modify, or destroy living non-human beings. Trees, lichen, moss etc., not to mention other forms of wildlife would count.
2. Do not modify the rock.
3. Do not climb in a way that harms the experience of other climbers. This can be manifested in all kinds of ways, too many to list here.

There are many ways that these principles can be followed or at least be honored in the breach by recognizing their existence. Many climbers seem not even to be aware that the world outside their experience of it even exists. Moving from relativism to solipsism is pretty easy, especially for male adolescents.

The broader argument of the economic exploitation that supports the practice of climbing is a troubling one . For example, the tacit assumption is that to climb at a high level of proficiency you must have an independent income of some kind. However, it’s never stated out loud. It is my belief is that the proliferation of young climbers somehow having the leisure to travel for months on end in very expensive places such as Europe depends to a great extent on the income inequality that has grown rampant in the U.S. The low participation rates of low-income and minority populations certainly speaks to this. Climbing is a lot like other “white” sports such as yachting.