16 Appeal to Tradition or Faith: "tried and true"Some of our traditions, our religious or political tenets, represent policies or basic decisions in the light of which we will wish to examine certain proposed courses of action that involve a group to which we owe allegiance. A nation may be committed to going to war when its allies are attacked, a political party to instituting a particular economic reform, or a^church to propagating the gospel according to its interpretation. Where an appeal to these basic policies is relevant for deciding on a course of action, it is always in order. Where the appeal is not relevant, it cannot be proper, as, for instance, where the proposed course of action on its face is no more a consequence of the basic tenets than the alternative courses of action. Where this is the case, the question is what means will best carry out the policy. At other times the basic policy itself is under question; in this case an appeal to it merely states the very issue which is being decided. Such an appeal cannot be in order. Thus, there are two main kinds of improper appeal to tradition or faith.
The first occurs where the discussion concerns ways and means for implementing a group's basic decision. Here an appeal to principle obfuscates the issue by hinting that one party is forsaking or at least conveniently forgetting it. The discussion should properly turn on a consideration of what is called expediency: does the proposed course of action meet the situation? Is it feasible? Let us look at an instance of this first kind of improper appeal to tradition before turning to the second,
EXAMPLE COMMENT Peter belongs to the Tin-Workers International Union, Local N, a union, like most unions, committed to the fundamental policy of striving for higher wages for its members. The membership in a certain factory is called upon to decide whether to arbitrate or resort to a strike. Peter addresses the members: "Friends and Brothers, we are pledged to do all in our power to obtain higher wages for our members. It is in our power to strike Therefore, I move that we go on strike." The manner of Peter's appeal to the policy of his union obscures the issue by suggesting that the alternative proposal is counter to this policy. The question before the members is which course of action will more effectively further the purpose of raising wages. Incidentally, there is also another fallacy in Peter's argument (see #45). The second kind of improper appeal to the basic decisions of a group occurs when the group is called upon to question the basic decision itself. As circumstances change, groups sometimes find themselves having to re-examine the commitments which originally brought their members together. National examples are the changed attitude toward monopoly since the early days of trust busting, and the diminishing reluctance of some leaders to surrender part of national sovereignty to a world organization. When a proposal to change a policy -- to modify a traditional practice or recast a fundamental objective -- is under discussion by the membership of a group, it is clearly circular to attack the proposal as undermining the established order. It is irrelevant to argue that the basic decision is fundamental or hallowed by usage and loyal observance -- though, of course, these factors will make some proposed changes seem revolutionary and of the gravest concern. Yet whenever the soundness of the established order is being challenged by responsible persons, then the justification for the commitment should be re-examined. The re-examination may result in modifying or renouncing the commitment. It may result in reaffirming it. To reaffirm is also to make a new decision. When reason prevails the group will make such a decision (since it concerns by definition matters of fundamental importance to the group) only after conscientious re-examination. The thing to notice here is that for the very reason that people do not lightly propose the overturning of fundamental commitments, it is all the more disorderly in discussion either to be continually making emotional appeals to them when they are not in question, or to beg the question by mere reiteration of the basic commitment which the group is being asked to re-examine.
EXAMPLE COMMENT Paul is reading the Congressional Record for 1919. He discovers the debates concerning the entrance of the United States into the League of Nations and reads the following statement by Senator Peter: "I am an isolationist and intend to remain one. The Wilsonites are subversive of the American tradition, a tradition hallowed by our great founder and by thirteen decades of American history." The tradition of isolationism amounted to a basic decision of American policy thoroughly entrenched in the structure of our international relations prior to 1919. Those men (the "Wilsonites") who favored joining the League of Nations in 1919 were in effect challenging the soundness of the tradition itself in the light of World War I. Such a challenge is always in a sense subversive: it is a proposal to "subvert" a tradition. To call the followers of Wilson subversive was, thus, merely to state that they were challenging the tradition, a fact obvious to everybody -- with an emotional suggestion that it was wicked to do so. Now if Senator Peter had carefully examined the proposal, he earned the right to reaffirm his adherence to the principle of isolationism, supposing his continued acceptance of the tradition to remain unshaken. But he could justify his continued adherence to the tradition only by showing that it was sound, not by an irrelevant reference to its venerated source or long standing establishment.