The most interesting part of the Aristotle readings occurred on page 180, between 1355a and 1356a where he is talking about why rhetoric is useful. He says "Further, (3) we must be able to employ persuasion, just as strict reasoning can be employed, on opposite sides of a question, not in order that we may in practice employ it in both ways (for we must not make people believe what is wrong), but in order that we may see clearly what the facts are, and that, if another man argues unfairly, we on our part may be able to confute him." Although it is a lengthly quote, I feel like it sets up some kind of ethics in rhetoric.
Today, these ethics are not followed as closely as Aristotle would have hoped. There are plenty of people out there just trying to get you to buy their product, watch their movie, endorse their name, or whatever the situation. The most troubling deviation from ethics occurs in pop culture. Anybody trying to convince you on health care, usually use some sort of scare tactic, without presenting both sides. By presenting both sides, your argument may become more credible and logical. Since Aristotle believed a lot in proofs, I wasn't surprised he believed in knowing both sides of an issue.
In previous rhetoric classes, we spent a great deal of time talking about different types of rhetoric. We learned there are two different types of rhetoric, what some call traditional and consensus arguments. Traditional arguments focus on a winner. These types of arguments actually shouldn't be used very often. The only real time it seems necessary and relevant is in the court of law. However, most other arguments should be consensus arguments. This allows both sides to be heard and, by hearing both sides, both sides can come to the conclusion that fits the best. This should definitely be used in politics. A very simplified version would go as follows:
Side A: Believes health care should be free to all
Side B: Believes health care is a privilege, not a right. It shouldn't be free.
After they both argue for some time, Side B realizes that health care companies are making prices much too high and health care is overpriced. Side A realizes that implementing free health care would cost the taxpayers a lot of money.
Result: Both sides agree that health care should be easier to obtain, and a public option should be available for people who absolutely cannot afford health care. In this instance, nobody truly "won" their argument, but both sides stated their case, and the best overall solution was decided upon.
Unfortunately, this is not how rhetoric works nowadays, and it is truly a shame.
No comments:
Post a Comment