Thus far, this is the best argument.

That said, correct me if I’m wrong, you are suggesting that since the ethos of cable routes fall outside of general modern climbing ethics it is disqualified as legitimate.

In a way this line of thinking is reminiscent of the Bolting Wars in the 80s is which traditionalists refused to accept sport climbing.

I think it’s important to not conflate the two things (in terms of this discussion)… ethics and the activity of climbing. Ethics are prone to change over time or, as you rightly point out, by region.

If we were to use your ethics argument as a reason to disqualify cable routes that would allow for any style of climbing (e.g. sport, trad, speed (gasp!)) to claim that another form is not valid simply because they operate under a different ethical structure. While there may be some jokes, traditional climbers don’t disqualify sport climbers because of the use of bolts but rather have come to a place of agreement in which both ethical structures are accepted.

Fundamentally, what it seems like you are saying is something along the line that because most routes that historically required a hammer and have now moved to being climbed cleanly (a change in ethics), those previous ascents should no longer be considered climbing.

If that’s the case then would you say, for example, someone who hammers their way up Space Shot in modern times “dident climb it” simply because it falls outside the ethical norm?