Why do people listen to or make music? Why do we read books and watch shows or plays? Why don't we just wake up every morning, go to work, then return home and sit there in silence until bed and repeat the process until one can no longer walk? Why are you so concerned with what other people do? Is someone holding you at gunpoint until you go on a fox hunt or celebrate Christmas with them? No? Then don't worry about what other people do. You'll be happier and live longer.

I suppose an answer could be, it's human nature to have not only traditional (first-person or actual) nostalgia from things one literally experienced before, but also "second-hand" or "generational" nostalgia (knowledge of what one's parents and grandparents or "people" used to do one, two, maybe many more generations ago and as a result develop a deep and insatiable curiosity towards what those just like us used to do [sometimes not that very] long ago).

Sure, some traditions were better off falling out of favor and popularity. Those that don't, and that don't seem to harm anyone who doesn't willfully participate, shouldn't be any of your concern. You're not your brother's keeper. Certainly not in the context of random people you've never met or who otherwise have the courtesy not to subject your life and habits to the scrutiny of a proverbial microscope.

Also, vote for this as a Lounge topic. (Unless OP beefs it up substantially)

Can you make the case that an appeal to reason yields better results than an appeal to tradition, not only on an individual level, but also on a societal level?

Yes.

Alright, go for it!

It isn't that it necessarily does. That would be the same fallacy as the appeal to tradition fallacy. It is that you should not automatically take tradition as proof in itself that something should stay the way it is.

Upon inspection it might well be that keeping a tradition is the best course of action, or inaction, but reason must evaluate the options to decide that, not just deciding that choice, or lack of, is right just because it has been like that up to the present point.

Example: Claim: It is better not to kill people because the bible says so.

We can agree generally it is conisdered right not to kill people, but not just because the bible says so. We can evaluate that it is wrong to kill as killing is wrong for whatever humanitarian reasons we choose. The bible just happens to agree.

Ok that's a more nuanced position already.

Let me present you two other possible problems with reason alone re-evaluating traditions.

One, people are to some extend creatures of habit, and at least in part formed by the traditions they are inculcated in... and will have trouble changing. Constant and rapid cycling through traditions might be bad for that reason alone, it risks creating anomie.

Two, I doubt a lot of people are really able to think through all first, second and third order effects of a certain tradition by reason alone. Often the effects of a tradition play out over multiple generations, and it's actually really hard to accurately and completely assess them without the benefit of experience over longer periods of time.

I don't think those who use an appeal to tradition really take that appeal to be a serious justification. More honest/nuanced justifications are just not forthcoming.

You want to make love in the future only because you know what it was like to make love in the past. If you didn't know what it meant to make love, how would you know that you might desire what that unknown activity will do for you.

I enjoy the celebration of Christmas immensely because of good memories of the festivity in the past. They form strong memories which persist to condition its future celebrations. Christmas is also an excuse to be with my family and eat rich fancy food in a warm interior. It is one of three holidays I don't have to work.

What is known/judged to be comfortable, comforts the comforted. When the moralist or the lawmen show up, then goes the task of providing justifications for what should or shouldn't be allowed.

If we were Bonobos we'd run around naked and greet each other with a touch of our genitals. A disgusting culture of depraved traditions to be sure. Luckily none need to appeal to reason or tradition. It is what it is.

Why do many people belive the appeal to tradition is some inviolable trump card?[/quote]
Because for the foreseeable time, it is precisely that: an inviolable trump card.

The rationalism of enlightenment liberalism has produced nothing but monsters.

The only surefire way to proceed is through slow, steady empirical analysis, review and repair of traditional structures.

slow, steady empirical analysis, — Colo Millz

Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t slow, steady empirical analysis at the heart of Enlightenment Liberalism?

Hunting season has come around again and it has got me reading up around it and that is an oft touted reason for its continuance. — unimportant

I come from a family of hunters, although I don’t hunt anymore. As much as you might sneer, hunting is an important tradition for us. I have many good memories of the times I spent with my family. It’s an important part of my memories as a young person. That’s a perfectly reasonable argument for continuing to hunt, although it certainly isn’t the only argument, or even, necessarily, the best one.

I just read the wiki of appeal to tradition which is a nice summation of this documented logical fallacy. — unimportant

An appeal to tradition is a statement of personal and community values. That’s a perfectly reasonable factor to consider when talking about social decisions and actions.

When I declare a communist/anarchist state I will call the public holidays by generic names such as 'festivity day x3827.5' — unimportant

You either mean this ironically or you’ve misunderstood the meaning of the word “anarchism .”

A good post, although I think it’s perfectly reasonable to place this thread on the main page.

Can you make the case that an appeal to reason yields better results than an appeal to tradition, not only on an individual level, but also on a societal level? — ChatteringMonkey

Yes — unimportant

Logical arguments are not about the results of an action, they’re about truth

About conservation of truth.

What is known/judged to be comfortable, comforts the comforted. When the moralist or the lawmen show up, then goes the task of providing justifications for what should or shouldn't be allowed.

If we were Bonobos we'd run around naked and greet each other with a touch of our genitals. A disgusting culture of depraved traditions to be sure. Luckily none need to appeal to reason or tradition. It is what it is. — Nils Loc

A really good post. You got to the heart of it better than I did.

About conservation of truth. — ChatteringMonkey

I don’t know what that means.

Why do many people belive the appeal to tradition is some inviolable trump card? — unimportant

Tradition is not infallible; it's just better than most things. Humans are intelligent; they do things for reasons; the things they do over and over tend to have very sound or deep reasons; therefore tradition is a reliable norm. Most thinking is faddish, and therefore tradition is a good rule of thumb.

A logical argument perserves truth from the premisses to the conclusion... but the conclusion is only true if the premisses were true to begin with.

Anyway this is beside the point of the OP probably, I also don't quite got what you were getting at.

Anyway this is beside the point of the OP probably, I also don't quite got what you were getting at. — ChatteringMonkey

The OP indicates an appeal to tradition is a logical fallacy. Then you ask whether an appeal to reason gets better results than an appeal to tradition. That is irrelevant to the question on the table, which deals with logic and truth, not results.

To be fair to @unimportant, you brought up the subject of results and not he.

Aah ok, but then I would just say this isn't about logic. That is, when people say they follow a tradition because that's what they did in the past they aren't making a logical argument, nor should they I think. Do you think people should be able to make a logical argument for everything they do, that seems off to me.

Aah ok, but then I would just say this isn't about logic. — ChatteringMonkey

@unimportant called this out as a logical fallacy. That that’s where my first post came from.

You say this is not about logic… then what is it about? I’ll go back to what I said before— it’s about values. In that context, it’s about assumptions. What values are assumed when you make an argument against hunting? I guess the argument is that hunting is inhumane. Now I guess we can argue about which of those values is more important.

It was reading some scholarly article this afternoon about Nietzsche and his views on the laws of Manu, and on laws in general, which one could see as a kind of tradition, or a convention if you will.

He seems to think that these things do not form arbitrary exactly, but also not as a result of reason strictly speaking, but rather as the result of an artistic vision with a certain kind of society in mind.

This then gets codified and passed over the generations as the Truth, the law, the word of God etc... a holy lie.

Tradition then precedes people... it educates and forms them into what they are. So insofar as the OP is asking for a justification for tradition, he's got it exactly backwards if we follow this line of reasoning. Tradition, convention is typically what can be used as a justification.

One could say we have moved past that, and rely on reason now for justification, but reason will, as you say, necessarily have to go back to some kind of value because it doesn't say anything on its own.

I would say the assumptions, what values are deemed more important, are ultimately a matter of convention... of tradition. To say otherwise one would have to assume some objectivity to values, and that is a whole other can of worms.

There are countless other cultural traditions, considered 'harmless' and beneficial such as Christmas which I am sure many here indulge. Can't stand that rubbish. I am not against partying but why have it over some stupid thing like that, which most people don't believe in now anyway? — unimportant

I think it’s reasonable to challenge arguments from tradition. If someone says something is a matter of tradition, I think the first response should be to question it. But that’s just a personal preference. Misogyny, homophobia, slavery, and many other bigotries and harmful practices are traditional. The defence that a group has always done something a certain way is not a definitive justification. And the question might be, “Whose tradition?” Is it tradition for the nobility to exploit peasants and does this make it right? Is democracy and liberalism a tradition? I’m sure many of the people who defend tradition may not be so enthusiastic about those two institutions.

When does something become a tradition and is there any agreement on how it works?

I would say the assumptions, what values are deemed more important, are ultimately a matter of convention... of tradition. To say otherwise one would have to assume some objectivity to values, and that is a whole other can of worms. — ChatteringMonkey

I agree with everything you’ve written with a little addition. I agree that factors that affect values include convention and tradition, but they also include personal human values that come from within—from our nature as humans. Some things we are born with.

I would say the assumptions, what values are deemed more important, are ultimately a matter of convention... of tradition. To say otherwise one would have to assume some objectivity to values, and that is a whole other can of worms. — ChatteringMonkey

I left something out of my last post. I said that we are born with certain things. That’s true, but we also learn things from what we observe and experience. Those are not necessarily traditional or conventional, or even social.

Yes I think I can agree with that. I have come to see it also less in binary terms.

I left something out of my last post. I said that we are born with certain things. That’s true, but we also learn things from what we observe and experience. Those are not necessarily traditional or conventional, or even social. — T Clark

And yes we are part of the world, which puts some structural demands on us.

We have a nature, the world is a certain (changing) way... within those bounderary you can have diverging traditions, but not with infinite variation.

I'm taking a middle ground here. I think fox hunting is immoral. Still, I think it might be true that something that is established or has existed for a long time might give one reason to show the thing special consideration (such as preserving it), all else equal. At least it is not obviously fallacious.

The fact that a tree is ancient might be a reason to preserve it, a reason that differs from reasons concerning non-ancient trees. Something similar could possibly apply to social practices (but I'm less sure of this, since I'm not sure if social practices are something in the right way).

However, this would only be a prima facie reason since it could be outweighed by other considerations. In my estimation, the cruelty of fox hunting clearly outweighs the conservative reason I have sketched. In contrast, celebrating Christmas probably has far fewer reasons against it, so the conservative reason could then be enough to favor the practice.

Still, maybe it is objectionable even to say that there is some reasons in favor of immoral traditions. I don't think that is necessarily a difficult bullet to bite. We could identify minimal reasons in favor of something that is clearly objectionable without licensing the rejection of the source of that minimal reason. "Nothingism" (the view that nothing exists) might have the consideration of ontological parsimony in its favor, and ontological parsimony might be a genuine theoretical virtue, yet it should be rejected because of other severe theoretical vices.

There might thus be intuitive support for the conservative reasons people are getting at. However, such reasons should clearly not always be decisive.

isn’t slow, steady empirical analysis at the heart of Enlightenment Liberalism? — T Clark

I think it goes back to Aquinas and then from him back to Aristotle.

Cyrus the great seems to have been the first in recorded history, maybe/probably it goes back further, as an answer to religious conflict as empires formed and tried to incorporate diverse religious traditions in one political entity. It's an empire 'meta'-valuesystem it seems to me.