The idea being debated
Barbecues, rodeos, fishing, festivals with animals... Many practices involving animals are traditions: they're passed down from generation to generation. That's why some people say we should respect them.
This text shows that something being traditional doesn't prove it's fair.
Problem 1: the argument turns against itself
If tradition justified everything, it would also justify traditions of respecting animals, which exist in many cultures. The argument can't be used to defend just one side.
Problem 2: many traditions were unfair
Slavery was a tradition for centuries. So was denying women the vote. Nobody today would say they were right just because they were old. How old a practice is doesn't tell you whether it's good.
Problem 3: why respect traditions?
The author looks at the two possible defenses.
Defense A: traditions are good for people. They bring joy, togetherness, and identity. But if the good a tradition does for some people counts in its favor, the harm it does to others has to count against it too. And the animals in these traditions suffer a lot and die.
The author suggests a test: would people who defend these practices approve of them if they didn't know whether they'd be the one having fun or the one getting killed? Probably not.
Defense B: traditions have value in themselves. There are two problems here. First, it's very hard to show that this value exists. Second, even if it did, there's no way to say it's worth more than the suffering and the lives of the victims.
In short
- Being old doesn't make a practice fair.
- If some people's enjoyment counts, the animals' suffering has to count too.
- Even if traditions had value, it wouldn't outweigh the lives of the victims.