Tag: Ethical

Journal 2

In the speech below, identify any remarks that make either of the two forms of Ethical Appeal discussed in our lecture note for unit

2. Does this speaker establish his practical wisdom, his commitment to principles, and his sense of altruism?

If so, what does he say to make these qualities apparent? Does he appear to take account of the values, desires, fears, or prejudices of his audience?

Explain how exactly he does that. Make sure you discuss both forms of ethos in your Journal Assignment.

(Assignment length: approximately 300 words)

Alan Isaacman (Edward Norton) is the lawyer with the dubious honor of representing Larry Flynt, the infamous pornographer. In local and federal court (eventually in the Supreme Court) Isaacman is at pains to make convincing arguments that Flynt’s Hustler Magazine should not be censored. He uses a mixture of logical and ethical appeals, but given the unsavoriness of Hustler Magazine, it’s the ethical appeals that give him the most trouble and that are therefore the most interesting.

How does one “ethically” defend a porn king? That’s what you’re going to explain in detail in this assignment.

But there is a price for that freedom, which is that sometimes we have to tolerate things that we don’t necessarily like. So go back in that room where you are free to think whatever you want to think about Larry Flynt and Hustler magazine. But then ask yourselves if you want to make that decision for the rest of us. Because the freedom that everyone in this room enjoys is in a very real way in your hands. And if we start throwing up walls against what some of us think is obscene, then we may very well wake up one morning and realize that walls have been thrown up in all kinds of places that we never expected. And we can’t see anything or do anything. And that’s not freedom. That is not freedom. So, be careful. Thank you.

LECTURE NOTE UNIT 2
Defining Ethos

Ethos is simply Greek for “good character,” and if speakers and writers can show it, their arguments will become more appealing to their audiences. But how exactly does one go about demonstrating it?

But what exactly constitutes “good character”? Aristotle’s Rhetoric actually presents two different takes on this question – two different versions of Ethos.

Aristotle’s First Version of Ethos –
The Charming Appeal of YOUR OWN Good Character

In the opening paragraphs of Book Two of Aristotle’s Rhetoric (Chapter 2.1 in the Penguin edition), Ethos refers explicitly to the good character of the speaker insofar as this character is demonstrated over the course of a rhetorical performance. Again, this doesn’t really have to do with making references to one’s good reputation for having behaved ethically in the past. What matters for Aristotle here is that the argument one is currently making and the language on chooses should actively demonstrate one’s good character. That doesn’t mean one ought to brag about past achievements. Only what you say or write on the current occasion of your argument matters as you establish your ethical character. How do you establish good character and make it appealing to your audience. Your argument itself must suggest that you possess the three qualities that, taken together, define a person of good character:

Practical expertise or common-sensical know-how (phronesis)
The will-power (arête) that enables one to stick to one’s principles in adversity
Altruism, a willingness to act for the “wellbeing or happiness of others” (eunoia), even if this means sacrificing your own interests
Practical expertise is something that can be demonstrated over the course of an argument by revealing that you really do know what you’re talking about. Demonstrate that you are aware of other conclusions besides the one you are arguing in favor of. Point out the virtues and pitfalls of the reasoning of your opponents. Show (rather than tell) your audience that you have “hands-on” experience in dealing with the subject on which you are speaking. Talk the talk and walk the walk.

Will-Power means having the strength to adhere to one’s principles. But what exactly are principles?

Principles are the elements of a personal code of conduct that you have chosen to adopt. Rather than stating that you are principled in some sense (e.g., that you are a good Christian, a good Muslim, or a good Jew), simply state a particular principle that you are committed to and point out how your argument somehow serves that principle. Leave religion out of it, because some of your audience may not belong to your particular religion or subscribe to your ethical code in its entirety. But many ethical principles cross religious lines and are therefore of a more general appeal. For example, pretty much everyone values principles like courage, honesty, and loyalty. Invoke a principle like one of these and suggest that your argument is motivated by that principle. Here you are suggesting that your own will-power (that it, your arête) demands that you take the position that you are taking. You are implicitly suggesting that your audience – to the extent that they share your principles – is ethically obliged to adopt the same position as you.

Altruism is a commitment to act on behalf of the common good, even or especially when such action goes against your own personal interests. You can demonstrate this by pointing out how your argument will somehow benefit your audience. You can really drive the point home if you point out how you, personally, will not necessarily benefit from it.

Ideally, your presentation will include subtle suggestions that you possess all three of these elements of character. In practice, however, sometimes writers or speakers will only touch on one or two of these elements. But by touching on all three, and by touching on them repeatedly, the appeal of your character will grow stronger. But don’t overdo it or you might come off as being too full of yourself. Stay focused more on your argument and simply implant clues, little pieces of evidence, that you possess these three elements of good character.

Aristotle’s Second Version of Ethos –

Appeal to the Particular Character of One’s Audience on a Given Occasion

Later on in Book Two of Aristotle’s treatise on rhetoric (Section Seven, chapter 2.12 in the Penguin edition), he discusses another sense of Ethos. Here he advises one to look at the character of the audience and tailor one’s arguments to appeal to those kinds of people one is addressing on a particular occasion. Essentially this amounts to constructing a profile of the audience. Are they mostly young people, middle-aged people, or elderly people? Are they mostly wealthy people, middle-class people, working-class people, or unemployed people? Are they aristocrats, leading citizens, or commoners? This section of Aristotle’s treatise looks carefully at those three categories (age, economic status, and social status) and presents long lists of topics and attitudes that you might wish to include in your arguments for each type of audience. For example, regarding younger audiences (audiences who are mostly below the age of 30), Aristotle points out that they are preoccupied with sex, that they are easily angered by any sense that they have been slighted, and that they are generally optimistic. (Note how these characteristics pertain to the youth of today as much as to the youth of ancient Greece!)

Although Aristotle’s treatise only profiles audiences in terms of their age, wealth, and social status, modern rhetoricians have extended this audience-profiling Technique to include such categories as race, nationality, gender, and sexual orientation. If you are addressing an audience made up mostly of married women, certain arguments may work better than others in your presentation. Your job in making an ethical appeal is to figure out which arguments will be especially appealing to that audience and which ones will fall flat with them. Knowing what that audience values, what it despises, what it fears, and what it desires is crucial here. You want to associate yourself with the things your audience values and desires – and you may even want to associate your opponents with the things your audience despises and fears for good measure. The important thing is that you make yourself, your on-stage character, as appealing as possible for THIS PARTICULAR audience.

In addition to selecting the right arguments for your presentation, tone and diction are also of crucial importance. The key to making this kind of ethical appeal is making a connection to your audience. You want to appear to be one of them, or at least someone who really understands them. So you’ve got to sound scholarly to an audience of scholars, hip to an audience of hipsters, and nerdy to an audience of nerds.

In analyzing this kind of ethical appeal within a presentation, you’ve got to know a little something about the audience an author happens to be addressing on the occasion of his or her presentation. Let’s say you’re looking at a speech that was given to a group of American military recruits. What do you know about the general profile of this audience? They’re all Americans, mostly men, mostly under the age of 30, and mostly scared silly.

From General George S. Patton’s Speech to the Third Army

Below are the introductory remarks from a longer speech given by General George S. Patton to a group of raw recruits who are about to go into combat in WWII. This speech was actually a shortened and slightly cleaned up version of the colorful speech Patton actually delivered. The speech is somewhat famous still, and George C. Scott (the actor portraying General Patton in this film, won the Academy Award for his powerful portrayal.

Note how Patton uses the above profile to appeal to this audience. His speech will appeal to the values of the American way of life because he is addressing Americans. It will appeal to manliness because he is addressing men. It will appeal to youthfulness, because his audience is young—and because Patton is much older than these men, he’ll appeal to these young guys, not be attempting to appear youthful, but by trying to seem paternally concerned with his advice. And his speech will appeal to his audience’s fear by addressing it and by showing that he understands it.

From General George S. Patton’s Speech to the Third Army

Men, this stuff that some sources sling around about America wanting out of this war, not wanting to fight, is a crock of bullshit. Americans love to fight, traditionally. All real Americans love the sting and clash of battle.

You are here today for three reasons. First, because you are here to defend your homes and your loved ones. Second, you are here for your own self respect, because you would not want to be anywhere else. Third, you are here because you are real men and all real men like to fight. When you, here, every one of you, were kids, you all admired the champion marble player, the fastest runner, the toughest boxer, the big league ball players, and the All-American football players. Americans love a winner. Americans will not tolerate a loser. Americans despise cowards. Americans play to win all of the time. I wouldn’t give a hoot in hell for a man who lost and laughed. That’s why Americans have never lost nor will ever lose a war; for the very idea of losing is hateful to an American.

You are not all going to die. Only two percent of you right here today would die in a major battle. Death must not be feared. Death, in time, comes to all men. Yes, every man is scared in his first battle. If he says he’s not, he’s a liar. Some men are cowards but they fight the same as the brave men or they get the hell slammed out of them watching men fight who are just as scared as they are. The real hero is the man who fights even though he is scared. Some men get over their fright in a minute under fire. For some, it takes an hour. For some, it takes days. But a real man will never let his fear of death overpower his honor, his sense of duty to his country, and his innate manhood.