Lecture Notes Week 07
Below you'll find the most important information from our seventh seminar - Ethical Rhetoric
Overview
This lecture is divided into three parts. The first part provides an overview and entry into the concept of Ethical Rhetoric. Different perspectives are introduced, and terms and concepts are explained in the context of what we already know and have discussed in our previous sessions.
In the second part, we link ethical rhetoric to language. Ethical rhetoric and language are deeply intertwined, as language is the primary medium through which we communicate our ideas, beliefs, and arguments.
The final part outlines the final written assignment for this course.
What is Ethical Rhetoric?
Different perspectives on ethical rhetoric.
Johannesen (1978) summarizes Richard M. Weaver's potential standards for ethical discourse, including the preference for arguments from genus (groups) and similitude (comparable), the avoidance of pseudoneutrality (there is no neutrality) and unwarranted shifts in meanings of words, and the need for clear distinctions.
Weaver (1996) explores the ethics of rhetoric through various examples, including the use of ultimate terms in contemporary rhetoric. Ultimate terms are what he calls, words and phrases that carry strong negative or positive connotations. For example:
God terms - related to widely accepted values, virtues, or goals and these are used to convey a sense of moral authority or righteousness. (e.g., Freedom, Democracy, Justice, Progress, Human Rights etc.)
Devil terms - associated with ideas, people, or practices that are harmful, immoral or threatening. Often used to condemn or criticise, and very effective in persuading people to reject or oppose something. (e.g. Terrorism, Fascism, Racism, Pollution, etc.
Porter (1998) applies rhetoric theory as a heuristic tool to address ethical and legal complexities in cyberwriting and considers special cases involving electronic discourse on networks.
Privacy of data
Intellectual property, authorship, and ownership of digital texts
Accessibility - disabilities etc.
Finally, Scott (1967) challenges the traditional justification of rhetoric as "making the truth effective" and suggests that the "concept of truth" as prior and unchallengeable may not be useful in understanding the role of rhetoric.
Thus, ethical rhetoric involves clear and honest communication, the avoidance of manipulative language, and the consideration of the ethical implications of one's discourse.
REFERENCES
Richard L. Johannesen (1978) Richard M. Weaver on standards for ethical rhetoric, Central States Speech Journal, 29:2,127-137, DOI: 10.1080/10510977809367966
Weaver, R.M. (1996). The Ethics of Rhetoric (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203820902
Porter, J.E. (1998). Rhetorical ethics and internetworked writing.
Scott, R.L. (1967). On viewing rhetoric as epistemic. Communication Studies, 18, 9-17.
Key Concepts in Ethical Rhetoric in Modern Discourse
The three modes of persuasion identified by Aristotle are central to ethical rhetoric. Ethos focuses on the credibility and character of the speaker, pathos appeals to emotions, and logos appeals to logic and reason.
Ethical rhetoric seeks to create a balance between persuading an audience and maintaining moral integrity. It emphasizes the importance of being truthful, transparent, and respectful in communication.
With the rise of digital media and social networks, ethical rhetoric has expanded to consider the implications of online communication, including anonymity, echo chambers, and the spread of misinformation.
Understanding the audience's values, beliefs, and perspectives is essential for creating ethical arguments. Ethical rhetoric encourages empathy and respect for diverse viewpoints.
Ethical rhetoric calls for communicators to consider the diversity of their audience and ensure that their messages are inclusive and respectful of different cultural, social, and individual backgrounds.
Based on these concepts and ideas, what are the main controversies in Ethical Rhetoric in Modern Discourse?
Food for thought
Think about the answers to the following questions
How can ethical rhetoric promote critical thinking, respectful discourse, and effective communication in various societal contexts (e.g., politics, journalism, advertising, and social media)? Share examples from your personal experience or public discourse.
What is ethical rhetoric?
Discuss the challenges that modern society faces in maintaining ethical rhetoric, such as misinformation, polarization, and the digital age. How can individuals and institutions work together to overcome these challenges?
In rhetoric and composition, how can you ensure that your writing and arguments are ethically sound while still being persuasive? Share specific strategies or techniques that you think would be helpful.
How can studying ethical rhetoric in rhetoric and composition help prepare you to contribute positively to public discourse and promote ethical communication in your future personal, academic, or professional endeavours?
How can you apply the principles of ethical rhetoric to your interactions within your academic community, such as class discussions, group projects, and peer reviews? Share examples and strategies for promoting ethical discourse in these settings.
Ethical Rhetoric and Language
The relationship between ethical rhetoric and language is deeply intertwined, as language is the primary medium through which we communicate our ideas, beliefs, and arguments. Ethical rhetoric, which concerns the principles and practices of responsible, truthful, and morally sound communication, relies on language to convey messages that respects the audience, adhere to ethical standards, and maintains integrity.
Several aspects of the relationship between ethical rhetoric and language are:
Choice of Words
The words and phrases we choose when crafting arguments can significantly impact the ethical quality of our communication. Using clear, accurate, and respectful language demonstrates an ethical commitment to honesty and respect for the audience.
For example, when two speakers are talking about climate change:
Speaker A: "The overwhelming scientific consensus is that human activities, especially the burning of fossil fuels, are responsible for the ongoing climate crisis. We must take urgent action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and transition to clean, renewable energy sources to protect the environment and future generations."
Speaker B: "Some people believe that climate change is mainly caused by human activities. However, others argue that natural fluctuations in the Earth's climate are responsible for the observed changes. It's essential to continue researching and understanding the issue before making any drastic decisions that could impact our economy and way of life."
Tone and Style
The tone and style of language can influence the perception of ethical rhetoric. A respectful, inclusive, and empathetic tone helps establish credibility and trust with the audience, while a condescending or dismissive tone may undermine the ethical integrity of the message.
For example, two speakers discuss a controversial topic related to social issues such as immigration policy.
Speaker A: "We must recognize the valuable contributions that immigrants make to our society. They bring unique skills, cultural diversity, and a strong work ethic that benefit our communities and economy. A fair and compassionate immigration policy is essential to uphold our shared values of justice and equality."
Speaker B: "Look, I know some people want to welcome immigrants with open arms, but we have to face reality. Our resources are limited, and we can't just let everyone in. We need a strict immigration policy to protect our jobs, our safety, and our way of life."
Framing and Context
How we frame our arguments and present information within a given context can impact the ethical quality of our rhetoric. Presenting information in a balanced, objective manner, considering alternative viewpoints, and avoiding deceptive or manipulative tactics demonstrates a commitment to ethical communication.
For example, when the media are reporting on new government policy
Media Outlet A: "Thousands of citizens gathered peacefully today to voice their concerns about the new government policy, which they argue disproportionately affects vulnerable communities. Protesters carried signs and chanted slogans calling for justice, transparency, and a more inclusive decision-making process."
Media Outlet B: "Protesters disrupted traffic and public spaces today, expressing opposition to the new government policy. Despite the inconvenience caused to local businesses and commuters, the demonstrators insisted on making their voices heard, drawing attention to their cause."
Inclusivity and Representation
Language can be a powerful tool for promoting inclusivity and representation in ethical rhetoric. Using gender-neutral language, avoiding discriminatory or offensive terms, and acknowledging the diversity of perspectives can contribute to more ethical and equitable communication.
For example 2 different panel discussions on gender equity in the workplace
Organizer A: The panel consists of a diverse group of experts, including women and men from different backgrounds, professions, and levels of experience. Each panelist brings a unique perspective to the discussion, ensuring that various aspects of gender equality in the workplace are addressed and considered. The conversation includes topics such as the gender pay gap, workplace discrimination, and strategies for promoting diversity and inclusion.
Organizer B: The panel is composed mostly of men who hold leadership positions in their respective fields, with only one woman included as a panelist. The discussion primarily focuses on the challenges and barriers that men face in the workplace, with little attention given to the experiences of women and other underrepresented groups. The conversation does not address the broader context of gender inequality or propose solutions for promoting diversity and inclusion.
Power Dynamics
Language plays a critical role in shaping power dynamics within communication. Ethical rhetoric acknowledges and addresses the potential for language to reinforce or challenge existing power structures, biases, and stereotypes, aiming to create a more equitable and just discourse.
For example, workplace policy and practice
Manager A: This manager listens carefully to the employees' concerns, acknowledges their experiences, and engages in a respectful dialogue with them. They consider the employees' suggestions seriously and work collaboratively to identify potential solutions or improvements to the workplace policies. Manager A recognizes their position of authority and uses it to facilitate open communication, empower employees, and promote positive change.
Manager B: This manager dismisses or downplays the employees' concerns, asserting that the current workplace policies are already adequate and that there is no need for change. They may use their position of authority to silence dissent or make employees feel uncomfortable voicing their opinions. Manager B does not engage in a genuine dialogue with employees and does not take their suggestions into account, reinforcing the existing power dynamics and discouraging open communication.
Intention and Impact
Ethical rhetoric recognizes that the intentions behind language use and the impact of language on the audience are both important. Responsible communicators are aware of the potential consequences of their words and strive to use language that fosters understanding, empathy, and constructive dialogue.
For example, a design campaign for healthy lifestyle choices
Designer A: This designer creates a campaign that focuses on empowering individuals with information, resources, and support to make healthier choices. The intention behind the campaign is to promote well-being and help people take control of their health. The messages are positive, encouraging, and inclusive, recognizing the diverse needs and circumstances of different individuals. The impact of the campaign is likely to be positive, as it fosters a sense of agency and support for those who want to adopt a healthier lifestyle.
Designer B: This designer develops a campaign that uses scare tactics and shame to encourage people to change their behaviors. The intention behind the campaign is still to promote healthier lifestyles, but the approach is fear-based and potentially stigmatizing. The messages may include graphic images, negative stereotypes, or judgmental language that targets specific groups or behaviors. The impact of the campaign could be counterproductive, as it might alienate or discourage individuals who feel judged or shamed, rather than motivating them to make positive changes.
Task 01: Ethical Rhetoric and Language
Task 02: Ethical Rhetoric and Language
Last updated
