Samuel Sheffler on Tradition

Samuel Sheffler, in his Tanner lecture, claimed that 

One of the most important ways in which people attempt to preserve and sustain their values,

is by staying alive or doing stuff which keeps their kith and kin, or comrades or community, alive. 

It may seem that some other way of sustaining values exists- e.g. spending money on putting up a statue of some dude- but this is a delusion. 

Still, delusions or magical thinking are common or convenient. Thus people may also give money or provide resources to particular institutions or collectives for various, more or less, stupid or corrupt purposes.  

for example, is by participating in traditions that themselves support those values.

Nobody knows which tradition supports which value. All we can say is that some people value tradition. Others don't. Some may believe that a particular tradition supports a particular value. But something non-traditional may do so better. Only if there is a dogmatic belief that a particular tradition uniquely or optimally supports a particular value, can Sheffler's claim be sustained. But it is asking too much of a tradition to make this demand. I think Sheffler is thinking of religious 'rituals'. They may be traditional. They may not. Speaking generally, there is considerable latitude in their performance under exigent circumstances. Traditions, like customs, may be 'more honoured in the breach'. 

Traditions are, as I have said elsewhere, are human practices whose organizing purpose is to preserve what is valued beyond the lifespan of any single individual or generation.

They may be. They may not. Speaking generally, a tradition is merely a focal solution to a coordination game. Graham Greene gave the example of Stowe Public School, which was set up when he was a boy. One day, a notice appeared 'from today, the tradition of the School will be...' Greene said this to Allende who was explaining to him that Chile had no tradition of Army coups. 

There are rituals- e.g. the sampratti ritual amongst Brahmins- where the dying father or preceptor literally hands over his life's-breath to the son or designated successor. But tradition is independent of rituals. Few Brahmins bother with sampratti now. The thing is implied or taken as read. 

They are collaborative, multi-generational enterprises

families or monastic orders are examples of such enterprises 

devised by human beings precisely to satisfy the deep human impulse to preserve what is valued.

There is no such human impulse. I value emptying my bowels. I am never tempted to preserve my faeces. On the other hand, humans- unlike animals- may take a lot of trouble to preserve valuable stuff which they themselves couldn't care less about.  

In subscribing to a tradition

nothing about one's beliefs or values is entailed. You do what everybody else does or what is customary. Some may claim to feel very deeply about the importance of the ceremony or ritual or other customary practice entailed. But those same windbags claim all sorts of other fancy-shmancy emotions which reflect well on them. When I hear Tchaikovsky's 'Pathetique' I can't help crying for the starving Lesbian goats in Guatemala. That's why I only listen to hip-hop.  

that embodies values one embraces, or whose own value one embraces,

or whose wife one absentmindedly embraces till your own wife beats the shit out of you 

one seeks to ensure the survival over time of what one values.

Only in the sense that when you take a dump you are seeking to ensure the survival over Time, Space & the realm of Transcendence of shitting like a champion.  

Although traditions are not themselves guaranteed to survive, a flourishing tradition will typically have far greater resources to devote to the preservation of values, and very different kinds of resources, than any single individual is likely to have.

Also, that flourishing tradition will typically have a far bigger dick. If it doesn't, it could use its resources to get a penis transplant. Why is Scheffler anthropomorphizing tradition? Is it because he is a size queen? 

So by participating in traditions that embody the values to which they are committed, individuals can leverage their own personal efforts to ensure the survival of those values.

By doing x, individuals can leverage their own personal effort to do x to ensure that the value of doing x survives. Why stop there? Why not say 'By valuing doing x, individuals can value leveraging their effort to do x, to ensure something which can't be ensured at all?  This is empty verbiage. The underlying claim is simply mad. Participating in religious rituals may give you the assurance that you will go to Heaven. But any other sort of traditional or customary practice is merely conventional or apotropaic in some mild sense unconnected to any deeply held values or norms. 

In addition, they can think of themselves as being, along with their fellow traditionalists, the custodians of values that will eventually be transmitted to future generations.

Or they can simply enjoy dress-up. Ove the last three decades in my part of Fulham, American style 'trick or treating' has replaced the traditional demand for a 'penny for the Guy'.  

In this sense, participation in a tradition is not only an expression of our natural conservatism about values but also a way of achieving a value-based relation to those who come after us.

When you take a shit, you are achieving a value-based relation to future shitters because you have participated in the grand tradition of shitting.  

We can think of our successors as people who will share our values, and ourselves as having custodial responsibility for the values that will someday be theirs.

We can certainly think of future shitters in this manner as we drop our load. But is this really what Philosophy has been reduced to? This guy's dad- Israel Scheffler- was a Professor of Philosophy. But he didn't write shite. Why can't the son subscribe to the tradition his father subscribed to? Oh. It's because his discipline became adversely selective of imbeciles some fifty years ago. 

Our efforts to personalize our relations to the future

like giving a pet-name to next Wednesday or sending a dick-pic to the year 2028? 

also take group-based forms.

No. We evolved to live in groups. Our 'efforts' are irrelevant. 

In addition to participating in valued personal relations with other specific individuals, at least some of whom we hope will survive us, many people also belong to, and value their membership in, communal or national groups, most of whose members they do not know personally.

Empirical studies seem to that the Price Equation holds up pretty well even for structured (e.g. class stratified) populations. This is an area where Science has closed all the stupid questions Philosophy pulls out of its arse.