Appeal to Tradition

Appeal to Tradition

I cannot help but wonder whether, by continuing and expanding the school lunch program, we aren’t witnessing, if not encouraging, the slow demise of yet another American tradition, the brown bag. — Charles Mathias, Jr.

An appeal to tradition treats the fact that a practice is longstanding as sufficient justification for continuing it. Also known as argumentum ad antiquitatem, appeal to common practice, appeal to antiquity, proof from tradition, or appeal to past practice, the fallacy uses historical preferences—either of a culture or an individual—as proof that those preferences are correct. Traditions are often passed from generation to generation with no other explanation besides “this is the way it has always been done”—which is not a reason, but an absence of a reason. Traditions and customs can be admirable and sometimes helpful when making decisions, but by themselves they do not provide solid premises for an argument. Politicians, as in the quotation above, have found this fallacy particularly powerful when manipulating audiences. It hinges on our sentimental tendencies and our unwillingness to change, and it is particularly dangerous when it prevents change from harmful and oppressive beliefs and institutions.

From a purely logical standpoint, appealing to tradition simply means using the fact that we’ve done something in the past, usually with regularity, as sufficient reason to continue doing it into the future. The logical form is straightforward: Person 1 claims that X is a tradition; therefore, X is correct. It is “[a]ttempting to persuade others of a point of view by appealing to their feelings of reverence or respect for a tradition instead of to evidence, especially when a more important principle or issue is at stake” (Damer [2009], 115). The appeal seems to suggest that there is something good about tradition that trumps any other concerns—yet no evidence is offered that the tradition itself is beneficial, moral, or logical.

Appeal to tradition has been used for a very long time to justify just about every act of oppression humans have indulged in. It is difficult, for example, to justify slavery, preventing women from voting, and segregation. When an institution such as slavery is old enough, it becomes common to say, “Well, we have always done things this way.” The problem is that just because something has always been done, it does not mean it should be done. The fact that it has been done in the past does not make it right. Similarly, arguments against same-sex marriage have often relied on the idea that “marriage has always been between a man and a woman”—a claim that ignores both the historical diversity of marital forms and the ethical question of who should be allowed to marry. Much like racism, slavery, and corporal punishment, traditions often stem from outdated religious or cultural beliefs, and until people question the reasoning behind them, those negatively affected continue to suffer.

In performing an appeal to tradition, there is a tendency to romanticize the past. The word “tradition” may not even be used. We might simply be arguing that it is the only way we have ever done things, or that we have always done things that way, or that we’ve been doing something for so long that, even if there is a good reason to change, we should keep on the same path. For instance: “I don’t see why we should start using computers now. We have been using typewriters forever and they work perfectly fine.” The claim that the typewriters still work is a relevant consideration. The appeal to tradition arises if their long use is treated as settling the question without comparing efficiency, costs, or future needs.

Perhaps at the core of appeal to tradition is our belief that our family and cultural traditions are important. And, if we do anything for long enough, even if it is unwise, stupid, or simply evil, we start to view it with a sentimental perspective. It is like a truly terrible TV show that you grew up with when you were a kid. It was dumb, you didn’t like it, but it was the only thing on at the time or your parents always watched it. As an adult, though, you might find yourself romanticizing it, missing it, or even making your own kids watch it. After all, how many children have whined to their parents, “Aw, why do we have to do this?” and the parents reply, “Because we did it when I was a kid, and it will make Grandma happy, dammit!” Some part of us recognizes that whatever is being asked of the child is unfair or ridiculous, but we do it anyway, because it is just the way things are.

In some ways, appeal to tradition is a popular fallacy of grandmothers all over the world. After all, isn’t there something good about our traditions? Shouldn’t we preserve them, remember them, and maintain those actions and beliefs that make us a family and a culture? Perhaps there is something to that idea. Remember, though, that recognizing the flaws in appealing to tradition isn’t saying that traditions are bad or that cultural identity is unimportant. When we recognize that appealing to tradition is logically flawed we are just recognizing that just because something has been done in the past does not justify continuing to do it in the future, especially when there are other moral issues at stake.

Sometimes even those seemingly harmless grandmother traditions have more at stake than we realize. We might, for example, think that if we ask Grandma, “Why do we always have to have turkey for Thanksgiving???” she is well within her rights to say, “Because it’s traditional!” That does seem like a fair enough argument. The problem is that, even in this seemingly innocent case, there is a genuine moral issue at stake – the treatment of non‑human animals. Some believe that turkeys, particularly the ones mass produced to meet our needs for holidays such as Thanksgiving, suffer tremendous torture in factory farms. Does the fact that we have “always” eaten turkey for Thanksgiving truly trump the tremendous suffering that turkeys are said to experience to meet our need to feel connected to our pasts and our childhoods? Consider some of the following examples:

Look, I’m not saying anything bad about women. Our military academy has never allowed women to enroll. It is part of who we are. From the day our hallowed institution was founded, we have been men only. This has nothing to do with women; it is about staying true to who we are!

Notice, in the argument above, there is no time or attention given to all of the arguments that are relevant to allowing women to enroll in a military academy. No consideration is given to the harms done to women, to the way the institution may be perpetuating sexism, or to how the institution may be harmed by not changing with the times. The only consideration given is to maintaining the traditions of the past.

Our family has always been Jewish. We marry Jewish; it is just what we do. I understand you are in love, but some things are even more important than love.

Here, no time is given to other arguments and considerations regarding whom one should marry. In defending the argument, the speaker makes no mention of religious reasons for preferring Jewish unions, or of scripture, or of morality. The only concern is that the family has always acted a certain way, and so it is assumed that it should continue to act that way, even if there are good reasons to change. The same pattern appears in other contexts, such as when a mother says, “Our family has been Roman Catholic for many generations. How can you even consider leaving the church?” or when someone asserts, “It has always been our custom to treat women this way. How can you challenge our customs?”

We have a great American tradition of lunches made at home. Sure, some of these children may benefit from having lunches more available to them at school, but that connection to home is something that makes America what it is. We have lost enough of who we are to people who don’t respect our heritage already!

This example expands on the opening quotation. Notice that the fact that children might benefit from having free or subsidized lunch is mentioned but is glossed over as unimportant when in comparison with the damage that would be done to the seemingly holy institution of American traditions.

Political and religious appeals often rely on the same move. For instance, “You should vote for a Republican. Your father and his father were both dedicated Republicans, so you should be too,” substitutes family voting history for an evaluation of policies or qualifications. In a religious context, one might ask, “How can you be sure that your religious text is accurate?” and receive the reply, “Because our tradition tells us that it is.” In each case, the mere fact of a longstanding practice is treated as if it were sufficient evidence—overlooking the possibility that the tradition itself may be mistaken, or that the question deserves a more substantive answer.

A special case of appeal to tradition is the gadarene swine fallacy, which draws on the metaphor of planes flying in formation. If one plane appears out of formation, we assume that the one plane is wrong, rather than considering that the other planes might be on the wrong course. History shows us that at times the “single planes,” like Martin Luther King Jr., demonstrate how the rest of us were really just horribly off course. This variation highlights how the majority’s tradition can be mistaken, and that deviation from tradition might actually be a correction rather than an error.

There is one narrow exception: victimless traditions that are preserved purely for the sake of preserving the traditions themselves do not require any other reason. Enjoying a family recipe or celebrating a holiday in a particular way, when no harm is done, relies on sentiment rather than logic, and that is acceptable within its own context. However, when a tradition conflicts with the well‑being or rights of others, the mere fact that “we’ve always done it this way” carries no moral weight.

Just remember, our sentimentality for the past can be used against us. Worse, it can be used to justify any kind of inequality, inequity, and oppression. Morality likely is not as much something that defines us based on what others have done in the past but, rather, more by what choices we make as we move into the future. If it weren’t for the creativity of our ancestors, we would have no traditions at all. Be creative and start your own traditions that somehow make the world a better place.