tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5354591394765306254.post1849354550513596596..comments2022-12-11T01:32:04.557+13:00Comments on Around the World in Flightless Ways: Red Centre, day twoUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5354591394765306254.post-61593271701293997672010-04-22T14:16:37.163+12:002010-04-22T14:16:37.163+12:00What interests me most is the stance that it is no...What interests me most is the stance that it is not forbidden to climb though they prefer you don't. As you say, they own it, so if they banned climbing then you have to refrain. But they don't ban it they just ask you not to. I'm not sure I was right when I called this a moral rather than legal prohibition. Maybe its just a request. But what does that mean? One reason to take into account.<br /><br />An analogy might help here. Imagine you're a smoker. If someone invites you to his house but says there is no smoking then you have to abide by that. If the person says 'you may smoke but I'd prefer you not to' then it seems impolite to smoke. But that might be because it is really a prohibition rather than request although couched in terms of a request just to be polite. What if the person says 'I'd like to ban smoking in my house but when I do less people come so you may smoke but I prefer you not to'? This seems like the Uluru situation. Then in that case I think the request really is just one reason to take into account and to weigh up against your enjoyment in smoking/ climbing. <br /><br />If I wouldn't come to the person's house if i couldn't smoke then it seems I'm permitted to smoke - the person has invited me on the proviso that I may smoke if I want even though he prefers me not. If the company, good times, etc of being in the house are not worth it if I don't smoke then I wouldn't go. But if I'd still go if smoking was banned then it seems taking advantage of the situation to go and smoke.<br /><br />So the upshot is that you may climb only if you wouldn't go there if you weren't allowed to climb and you shouldn't climb if you would still go there if there was a ban. I'd still have gone if climbing was banned so I shouldn't climb.Simohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09240527622510390345noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5354591394765306254.post-68296013482698410042010-04-19T21:00:04.378+12:002010-04-19T21:00:04.378+12:00As I said in the employment blog post there is a d...As I said in the employment blog post there is a difference between respecting people's right to a belief (which we should all do) and respecting those beliefs themselves (which we should only do after evaluating those beliefs to see if they stand up to scrutiny). So it's fine for the Aborigines not to believe in X so long as they don't expect me to alter my own actions because of them. Except in this case they own the rock, so they can impose any condition they want as regards its use. <br /><br />I would not feel much in the way of a moral constraint climbing the rock as I don't share their religious beliefs. If there was an ecological concern then I'd be happy to accept that and would decline the climb. <br /><br />This may be contrasted with the Great Pyramids in Egypt. When visiting those in 2001 I was quite happy to respect the ban on climbing, since (i) it is a ban, not a moral request, by the owner; (ii) more to the point, it is motivated not by spiritual beliefs but by a desire to preserve the pyramids, and of course I share that concern; and (iii) it is enforced by the tourist police who are armed with AK 47s.James Wilsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05200860773221870979noreply@blogger.com