I find the idea of an orator needing to be morally good is often an oxymoron. While not always the case, persuasive speakers are attempting to switch the opinion of their audience, no matter what the measures are. By calling on ethos (emotions), logos (logic), and pathos (credibility) of their audience the orator is manipulating the audience in every fitting way. I believe that orators are only attempting to do something that seems very natural to humans, which is try to convince others to agree with them. However, with goodness, truth, and public communication comes differences in opinions, which I believe is the essence of life. I can understand why orators needed to be "morally good", however I don't think that having your job be based solely on convincing others of your own opinion is a good start. Consequently, I do not believe that goodness, truth and public communication go hand in hand in a persuasive speaking sense.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Although I agree that that morals and public speaking do not go hand in hand, I think some degree of truth is necessary to be an effective orator. However, like you said, truth can be very subjective and what one person thinks is true may not always be 'the truth' to another. Also like you observed, people will manipulate their audiences into believing what they say is true although it may have just been a half-truth or made up completely which just reinforces my belief that orators don't need to be morally good to be successful, just to make it sound like they are speaking the truth.
ReplyDelete