• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Traditions

If something is a tradition, should laws must reflect it?


  • Total voters
    34
That would depend upon the tradition in question, and its intrinsic value.

But then you're judging each tradition on its merits rather than just the fact of its tradition status alone. Which is pretty much the point.
 
I "get" where the OP was going, but I struggle with calling the hatred of a particular group or person/persons as a "tradition".

If my great grandfather beat his wife, and my grandfather beat his wife, and my father beat his wife, I'm not sure I'd call it a family tradition. I'd call it more a family problem.

By the way, I voted "No" in the poll.

"I don't see the problem with taking the belt to my kids. My daddy took the belt to me, and my granddaddy took the belt to my daddy and we all turned out fine."

-quote heard more times than I can count.
 
The answer is obvious: Of course our laws should reflect tradition, and do. That's the very thing that often lends them authority and credibility. The whole common law, which we inherited from England and which states have since modified by statutes, reflects traditional, customary views of the fairest way to resolve a given problem. Each judge would look to see how other judges had ruled in similar situations, and be guided by that accumulated wisdom.
 
But then you're judging each tradition on its merits rather than just the fact of its tradition status alone. Which is pretty much the point.

Essentially, yes. However, I would argue that traditions are often worth being given the benefit of the doubt, simply because they tend to have an at least somewhat successful track record.

The burden of proof ultimately rests upon those in favor of innovation.
 
Any action, traditional or not should be evaluated objectively on the basis of its actions and results. The preference for either the actions or results will of course have to be subjective.

I've seen traditions that used to serve a purpose but now are meaningless or even harmful such as throwing rice at a wedding, and I've seen ones that seemed stupid but ended up having a beneficial side effect which could be addressed directly, such as no kissing on the first date (fast relations can more easily fail) and I've seen smart traditions. But in all cases the merit of the specific act is what is important
 
Because there's no benefit to it and significant cost to switching. The point of this thread is to address whether the mere fact that switching is happening is an inherent negative. It isn't. Only the benefits and costs are... because any idea, traditional or not, should simply be weighed on its merits.

And what is the cost to switching?
 
And what is the cost to switching?

Having to make all the cars with the driver's side on the right, having a lot of cars with the driver on the outside of the road, which is more dangerous, and the very likely situation that people would forget. Driving on the wrong side of the road is already a primary cause of accidents, this would merely exacerbate the situation.

The obvious mistake you're making is talking about something that is ultimately arbitrary. Which side we drove on in the first place was a completely arbitrary choice. It didn't matter one way or the other. Both options have equal merit. When we're talking about social mores, that is seldom the case.
 
Having to make all the cars with the driver's side on the right, having a lot of cars with the driver on the outside of the road, which is more dangerous, and the very likely situation that people would forget. Driving on the wrong side of the road is already a primary cause of accidents, this would merely exacerbate the situation.

The obvious mistake you're making is talking about something that is ultimately arbitrary. Which side we drove on in the first place was a completely arbitrary choice. It didn't matter one way or the other. Both options have equal merit. When we're talking about social mores, that is seldom the case.

So would you acknowledge that tradition can be a valid basis for decision making?
 
So would you acknowledge that tradition can be a valid basis for decision making?

No, it isn't. And your smug attempt to mischaracterize the issue doesn't change that. Every idea gets evaluated on its merits, regardless of whether it's a new idea or an old one.
 
No, it isn't. And your smug attempt to mischaracterize the issue doesn't change that. Every idea gets evaluated on its merits, regardless of whether it's a new idea or an old one.

Then why shouldn't we change to driving on the left?
 
Then why shouldn't we change to driving on the left?

Because there is significant cost to doing so and no benefit. I said that already. Do you have some difficulty realizing that which side of the road we drive on and social mores are not equivalent? Do you somehow think that how we drive is a tradition and not simply an arbitrary choice that gives us no benefit to alter? Social mores are not arbitrary. This is your last chance. Are we just playing a stupid game, or are you going to say something of substance?
 
Then why shouldn't we change to driving on the left?

He has already told you. There is no benefit and a lot of cost to doing it. You have to weigh the cost with the benefit.

Take using standard units of measure here in America. There actually are a good number of reasons to switch over to the metric system, but we don't. It isn't because we simply want to maintain tradition. It is because it would be hard to do so with how worked into our lives the standard units are, and we are lazy. But when people can work it in without causing major hardships, it is done, without any argument about tradition (there may be an argument about cost or what if problems). But tradition is not there, eventhough it could easily be said that it is tradition for Americans to use the US standard units of measure.
 
If the tradition has a purpose the reasoning would be just as important today as it would have been back then.

...not necessarily. For example, traditions that are still prevalent in Middle Eastern architecture, where houses are built in compounds and surrounded with walls in order to help discourage wife-stealing, are no longer necessary in Western housing, where we have evolved a different set of traditions to define how one can find a spouse. Similarly, our cities are no longer walled. So that is a tradition that at one point played an important purpose of helping to disincentivize socially destructive behavior, that is no longer necessary. By understanding the purpose of the walls, we can ascertain whether or not we can get rid of the tradition. Not all purposes are timeless, and conditions that make them best served by one or more adaptation do change.

Many traditions are just benign. They are neutral. Such as there is nothing really bad about decorating a house in traditional colors of a season. Some have become benign so they aren't really needed but also do no harm. Such as a father giving away a daughter or the family giving away the daughter when she marries or a guy asking permission from a girl's father to marry her. These are traditions that were necessary for the social structure that existed in the past but have since become unnecessary given our new culture where the family has little to no say in who anyone marries. This makes the tradition not needed, so it should not be mandatory, and if it fades away completely, there is nothing wrong with that. But there are some traditions that people want to be mandatory that are harmful or simply should not be made mandatory because others want to be able to not participate in them and there is no need for them to do so.

I think you are mistaking "traditions that people still see reason for, but with whom you disagree" with "people who want to continue with tradition for no reason". And that is precisely why those of us who are cautious about throwing complex structures overboard feel that folks are doing so without bothering to conduct cost/benefit analysis, or are throwing in shallow, strawman assessments that do not attempt to honestly take into account those traditions' original use and purpose.
 
...not necessarily. For example, traditions that are still prevalent in Middle Eastern architecture, where houses are built in compounds and surrounded with walls in order to help discourage wife-stealing, are no longer necessary in Western housing, where we have evolved a different set of traditions to define how one can find a spouse. Similarly, our cities are no longer walled. So that is a tradition that at one point played an important purpose of helping to disincentivize socially destructive behavior, that is no longer necessary. By understanding the purpose of the walls, we can ascertain whether or not we can get rid of the tradition. Not all purposes are timeless, and conditions that make them best served by one or more adaptation do change.

I think you are mistaking "traditions that people still see reason for, but with whom you disagree" with "people who want to continue with tradition for no reason". And that is precisely why those of us who are cautious about throwing complex structures overboard feel that folks are doing so without bothering to conduct cost/benefit analysis, or are throwing in shallow, strawman assessments that do not attempt to honestly take into account those traditions' original use and purpose.

And yet people still construct walls around their own personal homes.

I never said I disagreed with any of the traditions that I mentioned. (In fact, my father gave me away and my husband asked my father if he could marry me before we got married. Granted we were getting married even if he had said no.) They are traditions that are nothing more than that though. They aren't legally binding, as most aren't and most have no reason to be legally binding otherwise they would be laws not merely traditions.
 
And yet people still construct walls around their own personal homes.

I never said I disagreed with any of the traditions that I mentioned. (In fact, my father gave me away and my husband asked my father if he could marry me before we got married. Granted we were getting married even if he had said no.) They are traditions that are nothing more than that though. They aren't legally binding, as most aren't and most have no reason to be legally binding otherwise they would be laws not merely traditions.

If I had to live in town, around a bunch of people, I'd LOVE a wall around my house/compound. Maybe people just like privacy or hate dealing with annoyng neighbors.
 
As far as I can tell, traditions serve two functions: to create a familiar bond between a community of people, and to foster a comfort zone that people can always steadfastly rely upon. Even hate-filled traditions can serve these functions if it enhances positive relationships with people. Neo-nazis have hateful beliefs but they certainly like one another, based on principle. So the beliefs serve a function, traditionally speaking.

In my own family, my siblings and I broke with many traditions because we did not find them compatible with the way the world does and should operate at present. Others we continue to adhere to because they have positive values.

I dunno... use your brain and critical thinking. If you're blindly following a tradition then you might be doing something harmful out of ignorance.
 
And yet people still construct walls around their own personal homes.

:shrug: some people do - and sometimes that is for security (for those whose circumstances advise it), privacy, or decoration. The original level of impetus is still there only for select individuals - for example, the White House has a wall, and for good reason. Your house, however, likely does not require a wall in order to help keep people who live a couple of neighborhoods over from kidnapping and marrying your daughters.

However, to take that and then extrapolate from it "obviously this tradition serves no purpose, and we can get rid of it" would serve poorly for one who designed (for example) houses for those who are likely targets for harassment/kidnapping/assassination.

I never said I disagreed with any of the traditions that I mentioned. (In fact, my father gave me away and my husband asked my father if he could marry me before we got married. Granted we were getting married even if he had said no.) They are traditions that are nothing more than that though. They aren't legally binding, as most aren't and most have no reason to be legally binding otherwise they would be laws not merely traditions.

:shrug: the boundary between "tradition" and "law" is pretty permeable.
 
Pretty much, yes. Basically none of the man's ideas were grounded in reality, but rather abstract ideology built upon Enlightenment era philosophical fluff.
Without specifics, a sweeping statement like that carries basically zero weight in a debate. Which is not to say (as I already pointed out) that his ideas were in fact full of flaws, but you need to do better than just these empty one-offs.

They have failed just about everywhere they have been tried, for exactly that reason.
They have, but not for that reason at all. These ideas worked (and continue to work) just fine for a very small number of people who agree to abide by them, such as the population of a kibbutz or an ashram. They fail for larger populations only because there's always someone who wants all the power for himself. ;)

Neither Republican China nor Tsarist Russia were responsible for butchering their own populations by the tens of millions.
Don't try to paper over the fact that both Republican China and Tsarist Russia killed plenty of their own people with whom they were unhappy. To judge the relative merits of governments exclusively by body count is just silly.

In the longer term, the ordinary peasants turned out to be somewhat better off under Stalin and Mao than they were under their predecessors.

The simple fact of the matter is that "Revolution" was never necessary to bring those societies forward in the first place. More moderate, and incremental means could have achieved similar or better results, without the needless bloodshed and barbarity Mao or the USSR inflicted.
An even simpler fact is that revolution takes place when the government fails its people. Thinking about what could have happened instead is rather useless.
 
:shrug: some people do - and sometimes that is for security (for those whose circumstances advise it), privacy, or decoration. The original level of impetus is still there only for select individuals - for example, the White House has a wall, and for good reason. Your house, however, likely does not require a wall in order to help keep people who live a couple of neighborhoods over from kidnapping and marrying your daughters.

However, to take that and then extrapolate from it "obviously this tradition serves no purpose, and we can get rid of it" would serve poorly for one who designed (for example) houses for those who are likely targets for harassment/kidnapping/assassination.

:shrug: the boundary between "tradition" and "law" is pretty permeable.

The major problem I see is that you seem to think I am advocating that if a tradition serves no purpose that it should be mandated or even pushed for it to go away. This is not true. I think people should be free to adhere to whatever traditions they personally want to so long as they do not force others to adhere to those traditions as well.

Laws should be in place because they serve a purpose in protecting people or promoting the general welfare, not because something is tradition. If a tradition happens to either protect people and/or promote the general welfare, then it can be a law, so long as it is weighed against any harm it may cause in doing this.
 
Without specifics, a sweeping statement like that carries basically zero weight in a debate. Which is not to say (as I already pointed out) that his ideas were in fact full of flaws, but you need to do better than just these empty one-offs.

They have, but not for that reason at all. These ideas worked (and continue to work) just fine for a very small number of people who agree to abide by them, such as the population of a kibbutz or an ashram. They fail for larger populations only because there's always someone who wants all the power for himself.

Exactly. Even ignoring his ludicrous ideas regarding the nature of history, social order, and morality, the simple fact of the matter is that Marx's theories almost completely ignore human nature, opting for a strictly deterministic approach instead. That has been shown time and again to be false.

Human beings simply are not an "egalitarian" species, nor are they inclined to think in strictly "egalitarian" terms. More dominant personalities are always present, and they have a strong tendency to take disproportionate amounts of power for themselves.

Besides which, Marx's ideas can't even really be said to "work" on a small scale either. Every commune I'm aware of has basically broken down and gone extinct after a generation or two.

The vast majority of people just are not interested in living by the rules Marxism sets forward.

Don't try to paper over the fact that both Republican China and Tsarist Russia killed plenty of their own people with whom they were unhappy.

The USSR and Red China killed more by an order of a magnitude. They imprisoned, tortured, exiled, and repressed massively larger portions of their populations as well.

There is really no comparison.

To judge the relative merits of governments exclusively by body count is just silly.

In the longer term, the ordinary peasants turned out to be somewhat better off under Stalin and Mao than they were under their predecessors.

Not in the least. The only benefits brought about by either the USSR or Red China were indirect results of industrialization.

Again, that was accomplished largely in spite of the ideology embraced by these regimes, rather than because of it. It was also not a development which necessarily required "revolution" in the first place.

Plenty of underdeveloped countries have made that transition peacefully. Tsarist Russia was actually well on it's way to industrialization before WW1 even broke out.

If anything, the damage caused by the Russian Revolution and subsequent Communist economic incompetence slowed the process down.
 
You do realize that you're clueless. The Catholics did not enslave the Orthodox

Really, so Serbian Orthodox were not enslaved by Catholic Crusaders? Want to bet on that?

nor did the Pope preach hatred of anyone.

You appear not to know who Pope Urban II was:

Pope Urban II's Speech Calling for the First Crusade

Moreover the leaders of the raid on Constantinople were excommunicated by the Pope. Despite what neocons say, America wasn't exactly founded on Christian principles.

We finally agree on something. America wasn't exactly founded on Christian principles
 
You appear not to know who Pope Urban II was:

Pope Urban II's Speech Calling for the First Crusade

And? What's the problem? I see no preaching of hatred here.

He, quite frankly, makes a fair point.

Freshly quickened by the divine correction, you must apply the strength of your righteousness to another matter which concerns you as well as God. For your brethren who live in the east are in urgent need of your help, and you must hasten to give them the aid which has often been promised them. For, as the most of you have heard, the Turks and Arabs have attacked them and have conquered the territory of Romania [the Greek empire] as far west as the shore of the Mediterranean and the Hellespont, which is called the Arm of St. George. They have occupied more and more of the lands of those Christians, and have overcome them in seven battles. They have killed and captured many, and have destroyed the churches and devastated the empire. If you permit them to continue thus for awhile with impurity, the faithful of God will be much more widely attacked by them. On this account I, or rather the Lord, beseech you as Christ's heralds to publish this everywhere and to persuade all people of whatever rank, foot-soldiers and knights, poor and rich, to carry aid promptly to those Christians and to destroy that vile race from the lands of our friends.


The speech really isn't any different than what you might see a modern politician making to sell a war. :shrug:
 
Back
Top Bottom