Ethics Of Rhetoric example essay topic

A Brief Look At The Ethics AndA Brief Look At The Ethics And Relevance Of Rhetor The relevance of rhetorical studies, as well as the ethics of rhetoric have been under scrutiny since its invention well over two-thousand years ago. So this is our question; is rhetoric relevant and / or useful for anything? I. On the relationship between rhetoric and the truth – Our first step to finding an answer is to explore whether or not rhetoric holds any relationship to the truth. II. On Rhetoric and Logic – Ironically, rhetoric can be used to do just the opposite of what Socrates did; to argue for or against something which the speaker is ignorant of. In fact, one might go so far as to say that Rhetoric is the opposite of logic. While logic depends upon truth and knowledge for its foundation, rhetoric need only rely on belief.

In the first centuries of the Christian Church, it was believed by all that The Earth was the center of the universe and was suspended motionless while the sun, moon and stars revolved around it. This belief made sense to people not only because it fit their – then limited – observations, but also because it seemed to fit well with the biblical creation story. But one day, scientists such as Copernicus and Galileo begin to make discoveries which prove that The Earth is in fact not the center of the universe, and is not even close to being in the center. Although, proof of these discoveries could be shown, the leaders of the Christian Church dismissed the scientists as contradicting God's Word and usually put them to death. Even though, logical proof could be given which contradicted a geo or solar-centric universe, church leaders used rhetorical means to keep people believing that the original view of the universe was true explaining that it was in accordance with the Word of God.

That people thought the universe to be geo-centric even after it was proven otherwise obviously has nothing to do with truth; only belief through the clever use of rhetoric.. On The Ethics of Rhetoric – Clearly we can see how rhetoric can be used for selfish and immoral purposes. But is there ever an occasion when rhetoric can and should be used in the name of morality? As Thomas Aquinas so rightly put it, Nothing is intrinsically good or evil but its manner of usage may make it so.

Certainly rhetoric could be used to persuade someone toward the truth just as easily as it can persuade them toward some falsity. But is rhetoric ever a necessary means to exposing someone to the truth about something? Many would say no, and this author would be inclined to agree with them. It would be natural for some at this point to argue that rhetoric should never be used in swaying people towards the truth because it runs contrary to logic, which is based upon truth.

However, we must take care not to make a universal generalization here. If we can find even one circumstance where logic is necessary in revealing truth, then it can be said that indeed sometimes rhetoric is necessary and our whole argument goes out the window This argument would not be very productive for our purposes anyway since rhetoric – albeit illogical – does not necessarily contradict truth. However, it can be argued that rhetoric in the name of truth used to contradict deceptive rhetoric is a waste of time. It would be like trying to knock down a straw hut by throwing more straw at it. To break down a even a straw argument takes a rock solid logical argument. I. On The Necessity of Rhetorical Study – Now the question is whether or not the study of rhetoric is even necessary.

Both those for and against the use of rhetoric would agree that the study of rhetoric holds great importance, although each for different reasons. If we believe rhetoric to be a noble pursuit then there is no question that we would encourage rhetorical study. If we oppose the use of rhetoric we will also find importance in rhetorical study as it is vital for us to understand our opposition if we are to put forth a valid contradiction. One example of this comes from Plato, who was one of the first to condemn the use of rhetoric. In the Gorgias Plato displays a great – if not perfect – understanding of rhetoric as Socrates dissects it through a series of questions directed at Gorgias and his friends.

When Socrates and Chaerphon inquire of Gorgias and Plus what art form it is that Gorgias is skilled in, they receive euphemistic answers such as, ... he is a partner in the finest art of all. This does not at all say what Gorgias art is, it merely denotes a quality it possesses – and an arguable quality at that. After Socrates points this flaw out, A definition is finally presented. Gorgias describes rhetoric not only as the ability to persuade others, but also as a power which can be used for personal benefit. And at this, the opening of the can of worms, Socrates dissects rhetorical discourse, at least the Gorgias method, by his usual question and answer technique, establishing various logical conclusions along the way – each time Gorgias agreeing. Through this dissection he is able to logically conclude that rhetoric is in no way related to truth, and consequently is not an ethical or logical form of discourse.

The logic in Socrates conclusion is so sound that Gorgias is unable to dispute it. Before Socrates established his conclusion about rhetoric, he made a point of clarifying each little detail of its nature and function through the questions he posed to Gorgias. If Socrates already knew of rhetoric and its nature – which he probably did – then he was simply asking leading questions to help establish the premises for his conclusion. If he did not know the nature of rhetoric, then his questions were for the purpose of study; For his conclusion could not have been as logically sound had he been ignorant of the subject. In either case, we can clearly see that Socrates ability to establish a solid attack against rhetoric, lay in his clear understanding of what it was.