Solo climber loses life in Yosemite N. P.

both are on the riskier end of the spectrum, no doubt, but why in the world are they, as Mr Skoog implies....immoral?

Whoa, I think perhaps you've misinterpreted the context of what was said...

The key difference, as I see it, is that steep skiing has been embraced by the outdoor industry and community in a way that free soloing has not. In my view, this represents a moral breakdown.

Considering the massive production the mass media had made of "extreme skiing" (i.e. Endless Winter - Glenn Plake makes reference...) and the virtually non-existent idolization of free-soloing - despite the very similar risk factors - I believe does constitute the label of a moral breakdown.

I have yet to see a resort in CO or UT or MT advertise, whether by words or image, the romantisized idea of free-soloing to advertise their tourism. Remember, it was the industry and it's standards that were being referred to, not the sports in and of themselves.

stugie, i appreciate your post, i've had this discussion before, and i find it very interesting.
my question to you is WHY
why is it wrong for an industry to romanticise an inherently romantic pastime. (most folks find an activity that connects man to nature as strongly as skiing the BC, very romantic)
consider surfing for example. Hawaii pushes the North Shore surf on the covers of magazines world wide. Lots of folks loose health and even life surfing those breaks.
also...
I find the argument that the media is solely responsible for general attitude to not hold water. We dictate what they put in front of us as much as they do. If we did not love images of steep skiing, there would not be any out.
So the issue is very much community based ( as Mr. Skoog writes, see quote above). And as such I also ask WHY does the embrace of steep skiing by the community constitute a moral breakdown?
from my experience, most ads showcase POWDER rather than truly wicked steeps. the latter are left for US, that is, ski crazies, so again, i think the "problem" if you think it is one, lies with us.
much love for humoring me, im in philly for the year, the skiing community out here is....well...they water ski. With beers god bless them, but still.

I would love to hear more here Mr. Skoog.

There's a well-known quote from Chris Landry in Sports Illustrated in which he defined extreme skiing as "if you fall, you die." Landry later tried to retract this quote (see Couloir magazine, Oct/Nov 1993, p. 3) by explaining that he told the Sports Illustrated writer that, "In Europe, the French would probably say something like, 'It's when if you fall, you die'". He went on to say that the sport meant more to him, but his original statement acknowledged that risk was a significant part of extreme skiing to the founders of the sport. I've seen little in the past few decades to make me think this has changed.

So here you have a sport which, when played at the highest levels, has two outcomes. If you ski and don't fall, you win by surviving. If you fall, you lose and die. You take this risk for sport, nothing more. Short of gambling with somebody else's life, it's hard for me to imagine many decisions you can make in your life that are more freighted with moral consequence. Steep skiing is different from other sports (including general mountaineering) because risk is inherent in the sport by definition.

If somebody wants to play this game, that's fine with me. I'll pass. For me the moral breakdown occurs when this behavior becomes normalized through marketing and personal promotion, and the moral dimension is glossed over. I think this has happened to a considerable degree with steep skiing.

Lowell's argument that the moral breakdown occurs when it becomes normalized by marketing and personal promotion seems to transfer the " blame" if that's the right word to those promoting and those doing the steep skiing.

What this , IMO, seems to omit is that marketing is predominately a reflection on OUR  ( the general publics) appetite. Marketing does not work ( many failed businesses  and products) if the audience doesn't  like or want the product.
Look at this community, TAY. TR's with steep skiing ( fall you die by my definition) reports have the most views. Most of us congratulate the skiers and write things like WOW! Incredible! You have big balls etc.
We revere these people and in many cases wish we had the skill and nerve to do what they do. We like reading about it and our responses to these feats, set up a cycle of  self -promotion, adulation and wanting to be like them ( or wear and use the same gear).
So before we demonize the "marketers" and " self-promotors" realize that the real culprit ( again if that is the word) is not
THEM but US.
I have no problem with those that want to risk their life. I understand the feeling of zen that many use to explain the almost spiritual experience they get from doing it.  I don't see it as a moral question at all. It is IMO simply a reflection of the inherent human conditon and those that want to assign a moral ( it's wrong)  tag to it are always those that feel they know what is right better than the rest of us.

It's also wrong IMO to say that climbers have not promoted the death games as much as steep skiers have.
There's always an article in the climbing magazines about "highball bouldering" or "headpointing "really hard trad climbs on extremely marginal gear. Climbers have even codified this level of risk with X grades here and the E grade system in the UK. The level of risk associated with climbing X rated routes and E7, even when roped is probably just as risky as steep skiing so the sole analogy between steep skiing and free-soloing on rock is I think too narrow.

...

What this , IMO, seems to omit is that marketing is predominately a reflection on OUR  ( the general publics) appetite. Marketing does not work ( many failed businesses  and products) if the audience doesn't  like or want the product.
Look at this community, TAY. TR's with steep skiing ( fall you die by my definition) reports have the most views. Most of us congratulate the skiers and write things like WOW! Incredible! You have big balls etc.
We revere these people and in many cases wish we had the skill and nerve to do what they do. We like reading about it and our responses to these feats, set up a cycle of  self -promotion, adulation and wanting to be like them ( or wear and use the same gear).
So before we demonize the "marketers" and " self-promotors" realize that the real culprit ( again if that is the word) is not
THEM but US.
I have no problem with those that want to risk their life. I understand the feeling of zen that many use to explain the almost spiritual experience they get from doing it.  I don't see it as a moral question at all.
....

I've been thinking much the same thing.  But then, I've said before that I (we) am much more of a front country (whatever that is) skier, and despite the appreciation and adulations I offer to those who charge strong lines, I get plenty of 'zen' simply being in my element, out in the elements, making strong choices.  Maybe it's an age thing..  If there's a moral element, perhaps it's tied to the classic case of marketing creating the zone of perceived coolness that drives decision making from beyond your own borders.

As much as I thrill to 'killer' TRs, I delight in the usually more moderate outings of those who through their stories, clearly nailed the zone they were aiming for.  I should think that zen comes in a number of sizes..

Anyone ever thought on the relative danger AND attraction of free soloing vs. skiing steep, exposed faces? 

Cool discussion! To get back to the original question...personally, the feeling I get after pushing my mental/emotional limits is almost equivalent whether free soloing or committing skiing. For example, I felt equally exhilarated after free soloing Backbone Ridge, vs. my descent of Triple Couloirs. There's just something seductive to being 100% committed to the line you're climbing/skiing that's beyond description.