Is it okay to “free solo” in popular climbing spots?

Question

Our climbing group had a disagreement today with another set of climbers over the fact that my friend was doing “free solo” on what normally would be a 5.6 top rope route. Personally I wasn’t happy with them climbing “free solo” but I respect their freedom to do so as long as they don’t endanger others. The arguments for “free solo” being unethical were:

1. You might traumatize others if they see you fall and die
2. Search and rescue will have to carry your body down
3. If you post a video of a successful “free solo” you’re further spreading bad habits around

Is this the general consensus? If so, does one need to seek out remote boulders to practice “free solo”?

Answer 1

While free solo climbing is receiving a lot of attention, there are other ways of climbing that are just as risky.

• In mountaineering it is common to go unroped on easier terrain to move fast. While 4b/5.6 is definitely on the harder side here, the transition between "hard scrambling" and free solo climbing is a quite fluid here.
• In trad climbing runouts can be pretty large or the protection pretty bad. Again, the risk profile can be very similar to free solo climbing.
• Even bolted routes can be extremely run out. Just consider the Elbe river sandstone climbing (German/Czech border region) where metal protection is forbidden and bolts ("rings") are often placed 25m apart.

These are not considered unethical.

Answer 2

Climbing is an assumed risk activity, put simply that means all your point always apply. You might fall and die, you might have to be rescued, if you post a video other people might try the same thing.

Taking a black and white perspective, all adventure sports should be banned because taking part might cause some trauma to a third party. In the grand scheme of things, if I read the conversions correctly, 5.6 is a little harder than a long step ladder, but not much.

If it's a training route surrounded by children, then I would suggest not free soloing it as you don't want to set that example. Otherwise if someone wants to take up free soloing then they need to start somewhere and a relatively easy climb seems like a good start point.

Answer 3

The primary directive of most ethical philosophies is "do no harm."

I think it is difficult to argue that you are doing harm to others when you are talking about accidental outcomes that end in your personal injury or death. It might cause distress for those who witness it, but there are so many examples of similar outcomes to things we accept as normal every day activities (e.g. driving) that I believe this becomes more of an argument of prudence over ethics.

However, point 3 almost certainly does contain an unethical component. When you promote reckless or dangerous behavior, you become partially culpable to the people who end up hurting themselves when they imitate your actions. This is one of the reasons you see people give disclaimers in videos where they are participating in dangerous activities; they are attempting to divorce themselves of responsibility for others hurting themselves.

I am personally of the opinion that because proliferating or glorifying free solo climbing is extremely dangerous, we should not consume media that depicts it, and we should try to actively discourage our friends from attempting it. I refuse to climb with anyone who I know free solos. How can I trust their judgement on the safety of a climb if they are willing to forgo any safety at all when they climb on their own?

Answer 4

Apart from the risks to rescuers and onlookers, which can be debated, something that hasn't been mentioned is the harm free soloing does to access.

Many places where rock climbing happens have tenuous access rights—Gariwerd / The Grampians and Djurrite / Arapiles in Victoria Australia being a prime example. Free soloing, whether or not it causes accidents, is a great way to convince land managers that the risks of allowing climbing at all is too burdensome, and that it's better to just shut down the crags.

TL;DR: While it may stoke your friends ego, it's doing the climbing community, and the broader community harm.

Answer 5

I don't think 3. is a good argument, because doing something is not the same as bragging about it online. How to communicate that you are climbing free solo is another debate.

For the first 2 arguments:

People take risks every day. When doing so they should have evaluated a few questions:

a) What is gained by taking this risk? b) How likely is failure? c) How bad would failure be (for me and others)?

So in this case:

What is gained by taking this risk?

A feeling of freedom.

(There might be more I don't know of.)

How likely is failure?

Not so high on a 5.6 top rope route, I would say. But keep in mind that you would also have to factor in how often you do take the risk and whether you might get lightharted after a few successes.

How bad would failure be (for me and others)?

You could fall and die (or get injured permanently)

One controversy here is that when climbing free solo many people seem assume and act like the failure would only affect to the climber. This is true for immediate consequences, but not (as your friends pointed out) after that.

(a point could be made that the consequences of a fall would also greatly affect family and friends of the climber in a permanent way).

(another point to consider is that not all falls would result in immediate death. You could also be permanently injured, with other consequences for people near you and society)

Bringing the points together

So now we would have to weigh the answers of the above. You might evaluate a few points differently then me. Personnaly I feel like the risk is not worth the costs to the climber and her/his social environment.

Answer 6

To consider your points:

1. One can reasonably expect climbers know climbing can be dangerous and they might see an accident. Just as drivers know they might see a horrible accident, it's unpleasant but the idea we can shield everyone from everything they might not want to see is not only unworkable but foolish. It is unethical to deliberately cause others distress but we can assume most climbers don't expect to have terrible accidents.
2. Rescuing people is the job of the emergency services. Whether or not you are in danger for a reason of your own making or outside your control. We can strongly argue it's stupid, maybe unethical, to put yourself in a position you know are incapable of dealing with or to deliberately put yourself in danger - for instance people strolling up a treacherous mountain in shorts and crocs and the weather predictably changes - but they should still be rescued if they do.
3. I think this ties in with previous points - if you are encouraging people to do something they are not capable/experienced enough to do, that can be considered unethical. It is ultimately their choice to do it but encouraging someone to do something illegal can itself be illegal so the same principle holds. Recklessly encouraging someone to risk their life without realising the risk is unethical, but if people simply see you do X and want to do X (big wave surfing for example) that is their call.

Answer 7

I remember when this debate started with the argument "you have to put on the helmet when you ride the motorbike because if you get hurt I have to pay for your medical expenses" and it slowly expanded toward ever stricter rules restricting people freedom. I know that the dividing line between the necessities of the society and the freedom of the individual is something very difficult to define. Centuries of philosophical debates went on about it. But isn't the time that we start saying stop this is going too far? Who gives you the right to decide what I can and I cannot do?

Answer 8

The main question boils down to whether suicide is unethical, given that free solo climbers have a significant chance to die while climbing. If suicide is unethical, putting one's life intentionally at risk should be unethical as well, paralleling that putting somebody else's life at risk is unethical because murder is.

Whether suicide is ethical is, of course, debated: There is a tension between the unanimously acknowledged value of life and one's right to self-determination. Cultures who assign a high value to individual freedom, like the modern Western societies, typically don't find suicide unethical.

The question about an indirect "advertising" effect is harder to answer because there is potential damage to others. Popular real or fictional characters certainly invite people to copy their behavior, including suicide. In recent years media coverage about suicides has become more careful and is accompanied by counseling contact information to mitigate any effect of unintentionally triggering more suicides.

Again the answer depends on what importance we assign to the freedom of individuals, both the climber's and the potential copycats'. Western societies with their focus on individual responsibility are more lenient than more traditional societies: Individuals have a lot of leeway how they go about their life, even if it may have negative side-effects. The potential copycats, assuming they are capable individuals, are equally responsible for their own actions; we are not responsible for others unless we abuse inabilities or dependence or use coercion. I also take issue with your labeling free soloing as "bad behavior": That judgement is dependent on the answer and should not be in the question.

The question whether it is unethical to endanger rescue personnel is similar to the copycat question. I can imagine that non-solo climbing also causes a significant number of rescue operations, and perhaps more urgent and hence dangerous ones because there are still lives to save. Do we find roped climbing unethical as well?

Another argument is that rescuers are volunteers; this is a different situation than, say, flying aircraft stunts over populated areas where potential victims don't have a choice.

My take as a member of a Western society which puts a lot of value on the individual freedom to lead one's life as one pleases is: Let them climb. It's fun and they hurt only themselves.