An analysis of Alex Honnold’s Free Soloing a Skyscraper
No safety nets, no ropes and no special equipment. Armed with nothing but airpods, ambition and an annihilated amygdala, Alex Honnold free soloed up the 1,667-foot Taipei 101 skyscraper.
Honnold’s successful climb is the highest free solo climb of an urban structure in history. The event was live streamed during a Netflix special in January and has been a popular topic of debate on the internet since the climb began.
Honnold’s climb has led to many questions about safety, and even morality, of his stunt. Should Honnold be paid half a million to needlessly risk his life for our entertainment? What does it say about modern culture’s indifference to the dignity of human life that so many are willing to watch a man risk his life? Where is the line between the human spirit of adventure and the common sense to preserve one’s own life?
Let’s take a look at this from a legal, social and moral angle.
Legally: in Texas the law states, “It shall be unlawful for any person, not employed to do so, to climb or ascend any water tower, windmill tower, telephone, telegraph, electric light or any other publicly or privately owned pole in the city.” Talk about restricting freedom—it’s illegal to climb even a “PRIVATELY” owned structure?
Or what about the fact that it is permissible if one is “EMPLOYED” to do so—does that mean that giving Honnold $500,000 makes it employment? Although this is Texas law, Taiwan law has very similar ordinances.
Even with the half-a-million payout Honnold said that the money was never the main driving force behind the climb. “I’m not getting paid to climb the building,” Honnold said in an interview. “I’m getting paid for the spectacle. I’m climbing the building for free.”
Socially: 6.2 million people viewed the event on Netflix and hundreds, if not thousands, more viewed the event live from the ground or inside the sky scraper. One of the viewers, Honnold’s wife Sanni McCandless, was watching from inside Taipei 101.
How does she feel having her husband climbing over 1,000 feet without safety ropes? She said, “I was basically having a panic attack the entire time.”
Honnold and his wife also have two young children together. Honnold is not a single bachelor with nothing to lose, but a husband and a father. If he failed his death would not just be a personal tragedy, but would affect his entire family.
Honnold views climbing as a way to support his family, not cause them distress: “I love rock climbing. How do I get to live my life doing that as much as possible while still supporting my family? Miraculously, it’s working. I’m able to climb full time, and I’m able to support my family. That’s freaking perfect. I can’t ask for more. This whole project is part of that. I get to climb something that I’m proud of that’s inspiring. I couldn’t ask for better.”
Moral: the catechism of the Catholic church says, “Life and physical health are precious gifts entrusted to us by God. We must take reasonable care of them, taking into account the needs of others and the common good.”
Catholic morality rejects the neo-pagan “cult of the body” which leads to sacrificing all other goods, and making an idol of success at sports. Does this make Honnold’s climb a distorted action?
What if Honnold had fallen? Who would be culpable? The catechism says, “Unintentional killing is not morally imputable. But one is not exonerated from grave offense if, without proportionate reasons, he has acted in a way that brings about someone’s death, even without the intention to do so.” Are the producers, filmmakers, and Honnold himself ready to accept responsibility for his death?
Is this an inspirational story about a man who conquered a sky scraper with physical excellence, bravery and a testament to the incredible capability of the human person? Or is this just an example of a climber who went against all better judgment, and refused to look after his own safety and the well being of his family?