Solo climber loses life in Yosemite N. P.

Yes, that's how I think about it.
This line of thought resolves the red-herring that "you could die crossing the street, so why does it matter?" For me, intentions do matter.
My thoughts on this continue to evolve.
I'm not a religious person, but I believe morality is a valid concept.

So by that logic a person knowingly putting their life at risk to save another is in an absolute sense, being immoral and that they may be committing an immoral act to rescue someone who got themsleves in that position by being immoral as well.
Like the base jumper on Baring this morning and his rescuer.
Slippery slope .. morals is. So confusing.

There has to be a moral element to the decision and action of steep skiing (defined as you fall you die), the degree of which differs by individual.

From WIKI
"In its "descriptive" sense, morality refers to personal or cultural values, codes of conduct or social mores that distinguish between right and wrong in the human society. Describing morality in this way is not making a claim about what is objectively right or wrong, but only referring to what is considered right or wrong by people. For the most part right and wrong acts are classified as such because they are thought to cause benefit or harm"

To come to this conclusion however some assumptions need to be made.

1. Society = Skiing community
2. Society believes that if one dies while skiing a steep line it is an unfavorable (harmful) outcome
3. Coming home to loved ones > Dying while doing something they loved
4. Loved ones > Self Gratification

Given the above assumptions would the skiing community say that a skier, who died while skiing a steep line, made a wrong decision to do so?  Would the reaction be different for a skier who is supporting a family vs one who is single?  I would say so because more people are harmed besides the individual.

I personally have though about this issue alot as ambitions have changed since my son was born (11 months).  It seems however that the debate may simply be hung up on the word morality as it seems that people are offended by its use.  Am I correct that when it is used some get the sense that others are judging their actions and decisions?  I can't help but think that everyone would judge the actions and decisions of someone who died while steep skiing.  (wow that guy made a bad call).  At that point aren't we all imposing morals on someone else?  Isn't that consistent with the definition above?

OK got to get back to work!  

Great post cjski.
I got to go mountain biking now but I like your argument. I'm going to think about it and get back to you on that.
Im not intending bike anything that I may kill myself on so I'm not being immoral. ( well maybe later! )

So by that logic a person knowingly putting their life at risk to save another is in an absolute sense, being immoral and that they may be committing an immoral act to rescue someone who got themsleves in that position by being immoral as well.

Wow, Chris. That's just nonsense.

I think you and I are quickly reaching the end of our discussion on this subject.

Wow.

I'm trying to understand the moral question. For what you say I get this.
If you  decide to go a ski a "fall you die" slope you are making an immoral decision because you know your actions ,if you fail will badly affect others that love and care for you.
If however, you decide to go ski a slope that you decide is not " fall you die" but still end up inadvertently killing yourself ( by hitting a rock that was in the wrong place at the wrong time) , then that is not immoral because you had not pre-decided to risk your life.

Is that it??
See Wiki definfition on morality.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality
For the concept of morals to exist one must have a definition of what is right or wrong in an absolute sense( religious beliefs) or relative sense (society norms). If one refutes the existance of absolute rules ( I do) then after that , as jwplotz says... it's all relative.
I quote.
Another related concept is the moral core which is assumed to be innate in each individual, to those who accept that differences between individuals are more important than posited Creators or their rules. This, in some religious systems and beliefs (e.g. Taoism, Moralism and Gnosticism), is assumed to be the basis of all aesthetics and thus moral choice. Moral codes as such are therefore seen as coercive—part of human sex politics.

Being an aethist, morality is a question that fascinates me as I was once told by a Christian that because I was an aethist I had no morals. 

I believe that your edited post answers your own challenge to Lowells' personal choice in 'defining' morality.  Gotta be a little careful about wiki this and wiki that.  I believe the personal compass is more relevant than social right and wrong.  You say you have no issue with a guy risking his life - and I agree with you - it's not our call to make.  But is bank robbery a moral dilema?

Morals are obviously a difficult subject...so what about a different metric?

What are the direct and indirect costs?

* How much have the parents contributed in raising.
* How much has society paid?
* Other direct/indirect losses.

I think costs are the only basis for a coherent debate. It can be argued that a premature death, if there is such a thing, destroys some amount of wealth that cannot be recovered.

Also, these theoretical arguments do not reflect my own thoughts on the matter.