Rhetoric as Counterpart to Dialectic - the Moral and Ethical Implications - Research Paper Example

Rhetoric as Counterpart to Dialectic- The Moral and Ethical Implications of the Section English Abstract Going by the Aristotelian definition that rhetoric is primarily about exploring the existent means of and possibilities for persuasion, it would be wrong to assume that rhetoric happens to be a morally and ethically neutral tool. The Aristotelian assertion claiming that rhetoric stands to be the counterpart of dialectic, but naturally, affiliates the art of rhetoric to ethical and moral moorings. As in all ages, rhetoric plays an important role in the contemporary political discourse. Ironically, the capacity to move public sentiment and to project political personas happens to be both the strength and weakness of the art of rhetoric. Rhetoric as Counterpart to Dialectic- The Moral and Ethical Implications There is no denying the fact that dialectic tends to be the art that pertains to logical argumentation. To some extent even at a superficial analysis, it does seem to be true that dialectic does come out as a counterpart to rhetoric in the sense that just like rhetoric, dialectic has a lot to do with the concept of persuasion and facilitating logical arguments and proofs, and does tends to take into consideration the opposing and contradicting arguments and viewpoints pertaining to any specific issue. Yet, dialectic also tends to differ from rhetoric in many salient ways. Quiet unlike rhetoric, dialectic is primarily restricted to the notions of argumentation and the proofs and logical fallacies attendant to a given argument, and does abstain from extending a theoretical framework to the use of emotion and is seldom concerned with the audiences imminent on an argument and the carried contexts in which an argument tends to unwind. In the light of this fact it seems apparently strange that Aristotle tends to place rhetoric as being a counterpart to dialectic, when one certainly cannot doubt the fact that Aristotle was conversant with the crux of the art of dialectics that primarily happens to be to test the veracity and truth attending an argument. Thereby, by considering rhetoric to be a counterpart of dialectic Aristotle not only enjoins on the art of rhetoric with the imperative to owe allegiance to truth, but also imbues the art and science of rhetoric with salient moral and ethical implications (Gross & Walzer, 2000, p. 149). While aligning rhetoric with dialectic, Aristotle not only imbues the art of rhetoric with ethical and moral implications, but also tends to present rhetoric as a tool that is neutral, which could readily be used by individuals and groups given to moral depravity to achieve spurious ends, if rhetoric is alienated from the imperative of being truthful and ethical like the art of dialectic. Aristotle presents a rhetorician as a person who is able to see as to what happens to be persuasive in a given situation (Gross & Walzer, 2000). Thereby in other words a rhetorician is a person who possesses the ability to identify as to what happens to be persuasive in each and every situation (Gross & Walzer, 2000). However, this may make one question as to whether the capacity to identify the persuasive is the alpha and omega of rhetoric and whether rhetoric is a science that is sans any moral and ethical constraints and limits. The thing that needs to be understood is that though the Aristotelian definition of rhetoric brings forth rhetoric as a neutral tool that has the capacity to do both the good and the bad, and the Aristotelian insistence of placing rhetoric akin to dialectic amply betrays the Aristotelian intention of affiliating the art and science of rhetoric to moral and ethical implications and constraints (Neel, 1994). Thereby, if on the one side if Aristotle presents rhetoric as something that is innately useful, yet also happens to lay tress on the fact that the ends to which the art of rhetoric is put use to is certainly subservient to the requirements of ethics, justice and morality. In other words as per Aristotle, rhetoric is not an absolutely neutral and morally sterile art, but as is the case with the art of dialectic, rhetoric is also subservient to the imperative of identifying an argument that happens to be persuasive by the dint of its allegiance to truth. Thereby Aristotelian rhetoric rests on the necessity of facilitating rhetorical truth while making a rhetorical argument, because as per Aristotle, people happened to be most convinced and persuaded by an argument which they believe had been proven in the light of the evidence presented in its favor (Neel, 1994). Aristotle facilitated the ethical bases of rhetoric by extending three technical bases of persuasion. As per Aristotle, the technical bases for establishing an argument to be persuasive, either ensued from the personality and the essential character of the rhetorician, or lied imminent in the emotional temperament of the audience, or garnered credibility from the veracity and credibility of the argument being made (Simpson, 1997). As per Aristotle, one species of rhetoric is such where an argument accrues credibility by the way a speech is conducted that endows the character of a speaker with veracity (Simpson, 1997). If a speaker eventually comes out as being credible than the audience are very likely to make the conclusion that the argument being put forward by a credible speaker is also very likely to be credible. While setting aside the more complex interpretations, even if one considers the most simplistic outcome of this assertion, it is a fact that the credibility of character has a lot to do with morality and truth. Thereby Aristotle does rest the success of rhetoric in the eventual credibility of a rhetorician which has to eventually do with the requirements of veracity and ethics. Aristotle delineates another species of rhetoric that relies for its appeal and persuasiveness on the ability of the orator to arouse just the right emotions in the audience (Simpson, 1997). Again, people in most of the cases are more likely to evince favorable emotions for such an argument that they believe to be ethical and moral. Certainly, Aristotle’s idea of rhetoric does not pertain to the base capacity for emotional manipulation. The other species of rhetoric that Aristotle classifies is the one which depends for garnering persuasiveness on the way in which an argument is put forward which makes the listeners logically acknowledge the fact that if the things happened in a specific sequence, one simply cannot expect a different outcome then the one being forwarded by the speaker (Simpson, 1997). This species of Aristotle’s rhetoric is the one that tends to be closest to the art of dialectic in the sense that it culls out credibility by bringing forth the inherent veracity and truthfulness of an argument. In the light of these classifications of rhetoric facilitated by Aristotle, it would certainly not be wrong to say that rhetoric does play a pivotal role in the contemporary political life. In fact the politicians and political parties that specialize in extending persuasive arguments do tend to command a greater credibility and acceptance amongst the masses. However, the thing that needs to be acknowledged is that many a times the political usage of rhetoric in the contemporary political life is sans any allegiance to veracity and ethics. In fact rhetoric has a big role to play in as to how the contemporary politics work and as to how politicians happen to think and communicate with their constituencies (Rorty, 2011). Rhetoric enables the politicians to extend a range of arguments in favor of their policies and decisions. Many a time, these arguments happen to be consistent over time, and do not give way to sweeping changes in consonance with the needs of political opportunism and tactical pragmatism. In other words many politicians choose to affiliate their rhetorical pronouncements to the dictates of truth, justice and ethical consistency. However, it is also a reality there is also a class of political community that chooses to use rhetoric as a neutral tool sans any ethical credentials to score a political point or to accrue public support. Hence, the people today need to evince a more discerning attitude towards the rhetoric that enters their ears in the current age of ubiquitous media and PR (Rorty, 2011). Irrespective of the Aristotelian dictate that rhetoric happens to be a counterpart of dialectic, the political theorists of today are always in doubt of the political rhetoric emanating from varied sources because many a times such rhetoric does not limit itself to the arguments that could readily be considered to be logical or truthful. The art of rhetoric is the ability to discern the most convincing argument and the irony is that rhetoric also happens to appeal to the human emotions. That is rhetoric is also about the capacity and ability of an orator to be able to arouse the emotions like anger, fear, pity, sympathy, admiration in the listeners. The other thing is that a rhetorical speaker could also muster the elements of what is called the ethos to highlight and sometimes construct a perception of personal character like the actual or assumed integrity of the speaker or the evident or projected sense of reasonableness of the speaker. The political rhetoricians many a times do so driven with the belief that this projection of character will make the people believe in the credibility of the larger political assertions and claims made by them. Such aspects of rhetoric could many a times turn out to be problematic in the sense that it makes the public opinion vulnerable to the arguments and projections made by the political class that feed on the public sentiment and emotions (Smith, 1984). Certainly this aspect of rhetoric could be put to nefarious use. Historical is replete with ample evidence that corroborates the fact that the political class is not always averse to playing on the public sentiment by resorting to the right choice of words. Yet, the capacity to sway public emotion and the opportunity to project personal credibility and character also happen to be the actual strengths of political rhetoric (Smith, 1984). Isn’t it true that if the politicians do not have the capacity to emotionally motivate and move the masses, it would readily make the politics get mired in apathy? Besides, in representative democracies the ability to project personal character is of outmost importance and a skill that no successful leader could do without (Smith, 1984). Thereby, a political rhetoric betrothed to morals and ethics does have its validity in all ages and times because many a times the challenge before political rhetoric is to present a specific situation in a specific context or to make the masses understand certain situations and circumstances about which they need to evince rational judgments. This being the nature of politics it is imperative that politics have its share of rhetoricians who uphold ethics and morals, in tandem with the assertions made by Aristotle. References Gross, A.G., & Walzer, A.E. (2000). Rereading Aristotle’s Rhetoric. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. Neel, J. (1994). Aristotle’s Voice. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. Rorty, A. (2011). Aristotle on the Virtues of Rhetoric. The Review of Metaphysics, 64(4), 715-719. Simpson, P.L.P. (1997). The Politics of Aristotle. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press. Smith, W.R. (1984). The Rhetoric of American Politics. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Read More