Is it morally wrong to attempt to climb a mountain?
(Theology, Oxford)
Wednesday, 15 October 2008
Submit your answer
Limit: 1000 characters
View all comments that have been posted about this article
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP address logged and may be used to prevent further submissions. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by Independent.co.uk's Terms of Use
-
Print Article
-
Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2008 Independent News and Media Limited
Comments
29 Comments
lnumyjz gwvscfbr opdxyqm qfnkeoyrz esdmnwcyq ujsmhb tkjqi
Posted by qawfoyi ujfswgkqi | 02.11.08, 07:40 GMT
lnumyjz gwvscfbr opdxyqm qfnkeoyrz esdmnwcyq ujsmhb tkjqi
Posted by qawfoyi ujfswgkqi | 02.11.08, 07:39 GMT
It must be immoral not to climb a mountain because it is written . . . we have jurisdiction over the Earth and all animals Gen 1.26 onward. Upon which every living thing lives - mountains come gratis - to climb or aspire to climb. Or the mountain we wake up to climb every day that is to subdue the urge to live at another's expense.
mountains just are and they don' t care if they're climbed or not. They are sustainable. Show me a ruined mountain. Everest still looks the same as when it started.
Posted by Bronwyn W | 28.10.08, 22:07 GMT
science has shown that a mountain is nonliving, so it is not sensitive to the pain of being climbed upon.
there are many oganisms on the mountain, though, and they may be killed or hurt by the intrusion of climbers. the climber does not mind killing or hurting other organisms for the satisfaction of a climb. this is selfish and immoral.
[if a climber kills/destroys for food, this is not immoral .as humans we are dependent on animals and plants to sustain us, and thus we must destroy these animals and plants to survive. in that case there is no choice.]
the climber will put in a lot of time, effort and money to climb a mountain. these resources have been used for fewer people's benefit than they cud have. the number of people benefitting can be increased if the climber's story inspires and satisfies others.
Posted by jay | 25.10.08, 15:26 GMT
One can say that it might be morally wrong, because God wants us to remain at the places we are supposed to live: valleys. One can argue, that if we try to do something against God’s will it is morally (ethically) incorrect.
Moreover, climbing mountains, reaching for high peaks could be morally dubious activity if we want to prove that we are better than others – a pathetic instrument used to built our ‘ego’.
However, on the other hand climbing mountains, as other sport activities might be a tool to improve social interactions, a way to discover new areas of knowledge – probably God would accept it, especially if he is devoted alpinist.
Posted by Anna P. | 23.10.08, 18:26 GMT
People imagine that God and Heaven are somewhere up high. In this case an attempt to climb a mountain can be morally wrong because it would lessen the distance between God and humans, showing the impudence and lack of humility of a person willing to do so.
Posted by Kate | 23.10.08, 18:18 GMT
According to Kant, morality can decide what is right or wrong in comparison between one's own perception and that of the larger group or (if relevant) to a given pre-ordained belief system based on revealed knowledge. In a society where "health and safety" informs the larger group, it would only be wrong in some circumstances, hence it is a matter of judgment and not morality.
Posted by Jim Friday | 19.10.08, 03:21 GMT
No, but it is morally wrong to leave your litter around, trash the place and have no consideration for either local people or wildlfe. I think people should be banned from climbing Everest 'just for the hell of it' and only scientists and serious/professional climbers should be allowed to climb it - not jumped up banker types with more money than sense or nauseating hooray henry's who think climbing Everest would be 'a jolly good laugh' .
Another thing - Why can't people take their litter home with them?? is this REALLY that hard. Decades of climbers have left the summit of Everest looking like a rubbish dump.
Maybe it's about how you were brought up? It's funny how it's usually the very posh or chav types that drop litter everywhere they go. It's also laziness and as mentioned before - a complete lack of awareness of how this will affect people and animals that live in the region.
Posted by Rob | 17.10.08, 22:52 GMT
If it won't come to mohammed. you have no option but to do so.
Posted by John | 17.10.08, 22:23 GMT
Given that most mountaineers leave all their rubbish, oxygen bottles, rope, crampons, frozen turds, etc etc on the mountain I would have to say most definitely yes.
Posted by Bitwize | 17.10.08, 13:50 GMT
29 Comments