If you had the power of mind-control, what would you do with it? If you had the ability to convince, persuade, or win over anyone in the world, would you use this power ethically? Is there even a way a power like that could be used ethically? Unselfishly? What would be the moral boundaries that encompass this act? At what point does the ability to win every argument, to convince everyone to stand by you, become less of a honed art, and more of an unscrupulous misdoing?

​

Hello, everyone! I’m here today to talk to you about the ethics of understanding and utilizing rhetoric—the art of persuasion. There’re a lot of big words in that sentence; perhaps words you wouldn’t ever ponder in your free time unless you were studying in a related field or major. You may not even think that this has much to do with you. Bear with me, however, and I hope to lead each of you to understand the importance of reading and writing rhetoric ethically—for us as a society, and especially now in this contemporary age.

​

Now, I understand that comparing rhetoric to mind-control is a little of an exaggeration,but I hope that that has helped you understand the age-old question that plagues rhetoricians and philosophers alike: Is there a way to use and understand rhetoric ethically?

​

Some stand on the extreme tip of the spectrum in this argument;they believe that rhetoric can only ever be utilized for the pleasure of the rhetoric-user; that there is no way the art of — if it can even be considered one— persuasion could be used for unselfish and ethical purposes.  In fact, in Plato’s Socratic dialogue, Gorgias, Socrates disdainfully likens rhetoricians to tyrants, stating that when either party hurts another, they think they are simply acting in their best interests. He deems rhetoric as an unnecessary adornment and a form self-fulfillment that could ever only be used for selfish purposes. However, as Gorgias, the rhetorician, argues in the same text: there are also those who heavily consider the use of rhetoric a skill, or art, which can be honed just as a physician might practice medicine, or an attorney might practice law; and that the right to use this particular skill as they like is theirs to exercise.

​

As I believe with most things, neither extremes are the answer. Being a student of writing and rhetoric, and throughout my experiences of writing to inspire since I learnt to pick up a pencil, I believe that there is truth in both positions. While I believe rhetoric is a noble and powerful skill to hone—that we can do a whole lot of good in the world if we were armed with the ability to persuade others to be kind and good people, to inspire crowds to fight for the right causes—there is also damage to be done.

​

For instance, think of a horrible political leader - someone who has used their position of power to hurt thousands, maybe even millions, of people. As horrific as their actions might be, it’s almost certain that this dictator or political leader used their “silver tongues” to rally countless people for all the wrong causes: causes that have hurt other human beings, that have sparked conflict and unrest.

​

I believe in a middle-ground answer for this discourse. As I mentioned before, rhetoric is a valuable skill; one essential for the progression of society, even. However, given the nature of this art, given how much damage a single rhetorician with the all the right techniques and wrong convictions can do, it’s an art that should be exercised with extreme caution: the way a professional wrestler shouldn’t start exchanging blows with their friends in an argument.

​

But of course, I’m not here to force my stance on the matter onto you - no, that certainly wouldn’t be exemplary for a talk about rhetoric. This talk isn’t only meant to convince you of the importance of rhetoric in contemporary society, it’s also to provide you with information - so that you can draw your own conclusions.

​

We’ve all heard or used rhetoric in our lives. From the time you convinced your parents to let you stay up past your bedtime, to every argument you’ve had on an online forum, to every single one of your college application letters; rhetoric is the act of convincing, persuading and inspiring. Those who have taken writing classes would probably also be familiar with the concept of Logos, Ethos and Pathos—to convince with logic and facts, ethics and credibility, or passion and emotions respectively.

​

In upper division Writing and Rhetoric classes, however, we study the art of rhetoric slightly more in-depth. The distinguished literary critic Wayne Booth establishes that there are, in fact, three other methods of dividing rhetoric: Win-Rhetoric, Bargain-Rhetoric and Listening-Rhetoric. These are further divided into more divisions.

​

Win-rhetoric is produced when the speaker or writer is determined to win, at all costs. There are those who fight to win because they believe their cause and methods are just. However, there are also those who fight to win with unjust methods because they believe their cause justifies the means. Of course, there are also those who fight to win - knowing both their causes and methods are horrific - simply because they would profit greatly from a victory.

​

Some of us might latch on to the first version of win-rhetoric  - the one who fights for just causes and methods. Yet aside from the obvious flaw of “having a just cause may be subjective depending on the rhetorician”, is it truly ethical to go into an argument or fight with the sole intention of winning without even considering a potentially different outcome?

​

Bargain-Rhetoric holds the intent to pursue a truce - diplomacy, or an agreement between the parties involved. The first version of this rhetoric can perhaps be described as a “win-win” agreement - it’s when two parties compromise productively to avoid conflict, and to ensure that both parties stand to gain something. The other two versions of Bargain-Rhetoric are a little less noble: one involves compromising out of fear of the opposing party, while the other involves agreeing out of confusion and the inability to coherently argue one’s point.

​

Listening-Rhetoric, on the other hand, involves exactly what it sounds like - listening to one’s opponent in an argument or debate. People may do so in order to truly understand the difference between the opponent and oneself. They may do so in order to understand the opponent to engage in discussion. Or, they may do so in order to find an opponent’s “weakness” in order to exploit it.

​

For some of these forms of rhetoric, it’s blatant which can be classified as “selfish”, and which can err on the side of “ethical”. Which category each of those nine subdivisions of rhetoric belong to, is, of course, subjective to each and every one of your standards of morality. However, all of that wasn’t quite the most vital takeaway of this talk - although it is important to be able to classify rhetoric that you read, in order to understand the author’s intentions and in turn, potential bias. That brings us to our next point - your role - yes, you - in reading and writing rhetoric responsibly.

 

Charles Larmore, a professor well-known for his writings on political liberalism, notes in an excerpt of The Ethics of Reading, that it is not possible to consider a relationship between the reader and a piece of text “ethical” or otherwise, as the text isn’t a living thing, nor is it able to defend its author’s intended meaning. On that note, it is also vital to note the distinction between an author’s intention and the reader’s interpretation - that is, that the former matters very little in light of the latter.

​

Intonations that come through easily with face-to-face communication, are sometimes not as clear through the written word, and there are no small amount of incidents where a written tweet or article gets misconstrued and badly understood. Alternatively, the author may think that they used acceptable and correct rhetoric, but their audience may become enraged or appalled. In an era where information travels at the speed of lightning and spreads like wildfire, it is essential for the author to take responsibility for the rhetoric they use - and to take into account what their audience will do with their writing, or how they will react.

 

But you might ask, “I’m not a writing or textual studies major - maybe not even a student of the arts! Why does all of this matter to me?” Well, simply-put - I doubt that there’s been a day of your life where you haven’t engaged in rhetoric. Especially in this contemporary age, where opposing opinions clash vehemently and everyone’s at least a little involved - or affected - by the choices that sociopolitical rhetoricians influence others to make.

​

Most of you will never be writing or studying copious amounts of rhetoric, certainly - unless you’re in a related field of study. However, if you are in the College of Arts and Science, the University enforces upon you - perhaps to much dismay on many of your parts - at least two semesters of introductory writing courses. Before this, writing was no doubt a large part of any high-school curriculum.

​

I know that it’s a pain to be forced to study a topic you have little passion for - some of you may consider these classes simply a speed-bump standing in the way of you and your ideal career. However, the need for clear communication is essential to the progression of society, essential to almost any career - certainly to most of the career positions that you all will be going on to fill.

​

And if you’re going to be using rhetorical techniques everyday of your life from now on - and others are going to be trying to use them on you - is it not important that you begin to learn how to wield it properly, ethically; and  to learn how to recognize when others are misusing their ability to persuade - especially if directed at you?

​

Countless of you will be graduating, and those of you who do - you will be writing resumes. You will be making proposals to your coworkers, writing memos, pushing forth your brilliant ideas. You will be arguing on behalf of your clients, your beliefs, and your theories. You will be rending hearts and souls with your narratives, with your written dialogue and storylines, delivered through movie and television screens.

​

Logos, Ethos and Pathos - rhetoric as a whole - will take deep roots in almost any line of work you decide to go into. And I hope that this powerful tool serves you well, in whatever you may choose to pursue.