Everyday Ethics

In a recent article, we discussed the role of philosophical rhetoric in moral deliberation, and the way in which both of this election’s presidential candidates demonstrate some positive and negative attributes in their rhetorical styles.  But we haven’t said much about why the very nature of rhetoric is so frustrating, and can sometimes play a negative part in moral decision-making.

The history of rhetoric begins with the Sophists of ancient Greece.  The Sophists held that truth was ultimately unknowable, therefore what we regard as truth is a subjective activity that is relative to the speaker.  From this, they concluded that rhetoric, not philosophical wisdom, was the most important thing to cultivate.  Since one could never know the objective truth about anything, the logical response to this situation is to focus on convincing others that your views are correct.

We clearly see this sort of focus in political rhetoric, as political candidates are clearly more concerned with winning the election than with portraying their views as honestly as possible.  In fact, many politicians will typically conceal their actual views in order to present themselves in a way that is conducive to winning.  This is horribly frustrating for the voter, who is trying to choose a candidate based on who they actually are, not just how they portray themselves.

This is highly problematic in the moral realm as well.  Moral rhetoric can certainly be a powerful tool in convincing others that your view is the correct one.  However, one hopes that this effort reflects a view that your position actually is correct, rather than merely a belief that you can argue for it well.

Consider the following example.  Abortion is a hot-button topic in the moral arena.  Arguments can be given on both sides for why one view is the correct one.  However, most of us assume that people who argue for either a pro-life or a pro-choice view think that they are correct.  It would be puzzling to find that pro-lifers (or pro-choicers) didn’t actually think their view was correct, but did think they could convince others that it was.

This points out an important distinction between political and moral rhetoric.  In political rhetoric, focusing on winning is inherent in the nature of political campaigns.  But in the moral realm, rhetoric ought to be used to defend views that you think are right, not only the ones that you think you can defend well.  In our own moral deliberations, we should be careful to hold this distinction.  The purpose of moral rhetoric is not to win, but to defend right views, and losing sight of this can be detrimental to productive moral interactions.

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.