Appeal to Tradition: "We've Always Done It" Is Not a Moral Argument

The structure of the argument

The statement “humans have always eaten meat, so stopping is wrong” moves from a descriptive premise about the age or prevalence of a practice to a normative conclusion about what should continue (Michaud, 2018). In the literature on informal reasoning, this pattern is classified as an appeal to tradition or traditional wisdom (Michaud, 2018). The relevant logical issue is not whether the historical premise is accurate, but whether historical continuity, without an independent moral premise, is sufficient to establish the conclusion (Hansen, 2024).

This is distinct from an appeal to nature: an appeal to tradition relies on a practice's age, continuity, or customary status, whereas an appeal to nature relies on a claim that a practice is natural (Michaud, 2018). The two arguments can occur together, but they supply different premises and therefore require separate evaluation (Michaud, 2018).

What tradition can and cannot establish

A tradition can provide information about how a practice developed, how common it has been, or how it functions within a community, but those descriptive points do not by themselves establish that the practice is morally justified (Hansen, 2024). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's discussion of appeals to popular opinion states that even a generally true claim about what is widely practiced or believed may provide only limited support for a conclusion about what should be done (Hansen, 2024).

Calling the reasoning fallacious does not prove the opposite conclusion (Hansen, 2024). If an argument for continuing a practice relies only on tradition, that argument is insufficient; a separate assessment of consequences, duties, rights, or other stated moral criteria is still required (Hansen, 2024). The same standard applies to arguments that favor change merely because a proposal is new: age and novelty do not substitute for substantive evaluation (Hansen, 2024).

Historical change and moral evaluation

The claim that history contains abandoned traditions is supported by scholarship on moral change (Kitcher, 2021). Kitcher's account of moral progress examines the abolition of chattel slavery, expanded opportunities for women, and increasing acceptance of same-sex relationships as historical cases in which established practices or exclusions were revised (Kitcher, 2021). These cases do not demonstrate that every departure from tradition is morally progressive; they demonstrate the narrower point that long-standing acceptance has not prevented later reassessment of a practice (Kitcher, 2021).

Research in moral philosophy also treats moral progress as contested rather than automatic (Kitcher, 2021). Kitcher describes progress as overcoming identified problems and limitations in an existing situation, not as a consequence of the passage of time alone (Kitcher, 2021). Accordingly, the duration of meat consumption can help explain current behavior and institutions, but it does not independently settle the moral status of consuming animals (Hansen, 2024). That status depends on additional premises and evidence not supplied by the appeal to tradition (Hansen, 2024).

Application to the claim

The historical premise can therefore be accepted for the sake of argument without accepting the conclusion (Hansen, 2024). Even if a practice has occurred for a very long time, the inference from “was done” to “should continue” remains incomplete unless a relevant moral justification is supplied (Hansen, 2024). This analysis does not establish that eating meat is impermissible, and it does not establish that discontinuing it is required; it establishes only that tradition is explanatory evidence, not sufficient moral validation (Michaud, 2018; Hansen, 2024).