1.5: Ethical Rhetoric Today

Aristotle did such an excellent job establishing the value or rhetoric that it became a major component of a classical education. Rhetoric, along with grammar and logic, made up the Trivium–the three lower division subjects of the seven liberal arts. From classic Greece to the Roman era, the Middle Ages, the Enlightenment, to the late 19th century, rhetoric was considered a core subject for statesmanship and was a key subject in Western education.

Fast-forward to today, and we see that the proliferation of media platforms has fundamentally changed the available means of persuasion. Advancements in neuroscience are giving us a whole new look–quite literally–into how humans process and react to persuasive messages. Much persuasion is still attempted through spoken and written words, but olfactory persuasion, sonic persuasion, visual persuasion and other forms are now being studied and will be explored in this text.

Ethical Persuasion

One of Aristotle's most famous quotes about persuasion is that "Character may almost be called the most effective means of persuasion." Aristotle understood that "we believe good men more fully and more readily than others: this is true generally whatever the question is, and absolutely true where exact certainty is impossible and opinions are divided."

Around 400 years later, the Roman rhetorician Quintilian defined rhetoric as "a good man speaking well."

What does it mean to be a good person or a person of good character in the context of persuasion? On its face, ethical persuasion means to put the interest of one's audience first. Persuasion should not occur as a result of dishonesty, force, coercion, propaganda, bribery, bias or manipulation. We will explore these concepts at greater length in future chapters.

Sherry Baker and David L. Martinson developed a tool called the TARES test, which seeks to establish robust principles for ethics and a more ethical approach to persuasion, particularly commercial persuasion. This test has five principles: truthfulness, authenticity, respect, equity and social responsibility.

• Truthfulness
  • Is this communication factually accurate and true? Does it lead people to believe what I myself do not believe?
  • Has this appeal downplayed relevant evidence?
• Authenticity
  • Does this action compromise my integrity?
  • Do I feel good about being involved in this action?
  • Do I truly think and believe my audience will benefit?
• Respect
  • Is the appeal made to others as rational, self-determining human beings?
  • Does this action promote self-interest at the unfair expense of or to the detriment of my audience?
• Equity
  • Am I doing to others what I would not want done to me or to people I care about?
  • Does my audience know they are being persuaded rather than informed?
• Social Responsibility
  • Does this action take responsibility to promote and create the kind of world and society in which persuaders themselves would like to live with their families and loved ones?
  • Have I unfairly stereotyped society’s constituent groups in my persuasive message?

We will close this chapter with a brief paraphrase of Aristotle's Rhetoric from political scientist Mary P. Nichols:

"If a rhetorician is to be persuasive, he must show that his advice is advantageous to his audience, that what he is praising is noble, or that he has justice on his side. In such cases, his premises, his conclusions, and his examples all reveal his character" (Nichols 665).