Everyday Ethics

After watching the last presidential debate between Barack Obama and John McCain, I think its only appropriate to say something about rhetoric, and how it applies to our everyday ethical practices.  Luckily, these two candidates offer a great starting point for conversation, as they both do certain things very well, and other things very poorly.  Before considering this, however, we ought to say something about what rhetoric is and why it is important for everyday ethics. 

 Rhetoric is the art of persuasive speaking.  If one person is attempting to convince another that a particular point of view is the right one, they are engaged in rhetoric.  The debates, and political speeches in general, are great examples of rhetoric.  If there is one thing that all politicians have in common, it is that they are always trying to convince other people that their views are right.  In the case of the debate, they are not trying to convince one another, but they are definitely trying to convince the viewers at home that their views are the best ones, and that this warrants a vote for them.

Rhetoric is also an important part of our everyday moral interaction.  It is often the case that our moral decisions are group decisions, rather than individual ones.  Your company might be considering an aggressive approach to some significant issue that is likely to make life difficult for other businesses and the people who own them.  You might disagree with your spouse about the morally preferable way to solve a shared problem.  Group decision-making is a significant part of our moral lives, and rhetoric is a powerful tool in presenting your case convincingly and effectively.

This brings us to our presidential candidates.  Politics aside, Obama and McCain both have some interesting strengths and weaknesses with regard to rhetoric.  McCain seems much better at demonstrating passion and conviction, but far worse at controlling his anger and frustration.  Obama is a master of calm, reflective replies, but sometimes appears aloof and unengaged.  The principles of everyday ethics say that we ought to glean some valuable information from this, and it is to this task that we now turn.

If the positive qualities of McCain and Obama are passion and calm thoughtfulness, it seems that our own rhetoric should seek to demonstrate these qualities.  If an ethical matter is really important to us, we should defend it with gusto.  Our audience should know that we care.  But we should remain calm and collected at the same time, engaging our emotions without letting them control our words.

Conversely, we should actively avoid McCain and Obama’s negative qualities.  We should avoid being overly passionate and appearing irrational and overly reactionary.  We should also avoid letting our calm and thoughtfulness overpower our conviction, remaining in control but not devoid of emotional engagement.  We need to show people that we care, but that we are capable of being rational despite this. 

If we employ these positive tactics and avoid the negative qualities that our candidates have displayed, it is likely that our moral rhetoric will be more successful.  Ethics is principally an active task, something that we do rather than just something we think about.  As such, we ought to have some notion of how to “do” ethics effectively, and our presidential candidates, through both of their respective strengths and weaknesses, have given us a perfect recipe for effective moral rhetoric.   

About the Author

Elijah Weber is a graduate student at Bowling Green State University. He holds a Master's degree in philosophy from Colorado State University, and Bachelor’s degrees in sociology and philosophy from Chapman Univerity. He currently lives in Ann Arbor, Michigan with his wife Laura, his son Brandon, age two and a half, and two cats, both of whom are mentally deranged.