Turner Vaughn October 25, 2010 English 852 Dr.

Jacobi Ethics and the Use of Emotional Appeals: Plato, Aristotle, and the Sophists The use of emotional appeals in rhetoric is greatly debated among the ancient rhetoricians of Greece. The differences among these rhetoricians is not only how emotional appeals should be used, but if they should be used at all. If it is true that one of the ancient rhetoricians believes emotional appeals should not be used than the use of them, in any situation, becomes a matter of ethics. For some rhetoricians its use is completely unethical, whereas to others different types of uses are equally unethical. Therefore in order to understand different uses of emotional appeal we must establish a definition of ethics. This ethics then is based, according to Plato, on the intentions of the rhetorician. According to Plato, ethics is simply aligning with and in pursuit of absolute truth. Which to Plato, is inherently divine and of the Gods. This is displayed in his depiction of two horses in pursuit of truth. One travels toward earth and dwells in the opinions of men, the other soars skyward in

Vaughn 2 pursuit of the truth of the Gods (Phaedrus 28). Therefore if what is ethical is associated with absolute truth, then the use of emotional appeal may only be used in presenting the truth, if a rhetorician has it, or in the pursuit of that truth. For example if someone has the Truth, according to Plato, the use of emotional appeal is ethical. Any other use of emotional appeal would be, to Plato, warping the jury. Interestingly enough Plato also admits that it is impossible to gain absolute truth, because it is of the Gods, but still insist that we pursue it anyway because it is the only truth. For Plato then the use of emotional appeals, or any tool of rhetoric for that matter, is based on intentions. Either your intention is to share or pursue the truth, or it is something else. For example a tragic story that is used by a minister in order to emphasize a certain religious Truth would be considered ethical to Plato, if the minister possesses or was in pursuit of the Truth. It is from differing intentions that it is easy to understand the position of the two groups of sophists. It is this position that separates Plato from other rhetoricians and their use of emotional appeal. For purposes of this paper I will use Platos understanding of ethics and his opinion of emotional appeal to compare and contrast with the views of the Sophists and Aristotle. Using this backbone and Platos The Gorgias, an obvious separation between the greater and lesser sophists emerges on the basis on differing intentions. In the Gorgias, Plato uses Socrates, Gorgias, Polus, and Callicles as characters to discuss sophistry and a definition of rhetoric. Regarding the ethical use of rhetoric, Gorgias separates himself from Polus and Callicles.

Vaughn 3 Such a distinction, in Platos eyes as well modern rhetoricians, separated the greater sophists from the lesser sophists (Encomium 2). Due to his particular system of ethics, Gorgias has been labeled as a greater sophist along with Protagoras. According to the Gorgias, the greater sophists define ethics as something that is commonly held and good for any community. Plato has him quote that, Rhetoricians must use their power justly(Gorgias 16). This allows for different societies and communities to have different truths about ethics. This is a fundamental difference from Plato as a foundationalist who believes in absolute truth. Therefore any use of emotional appeal that benefits the community would be considered ethical. The use of emotional appeal in this sense would provide benefit to both parties involved, the speaker and the community, which is perfectly ethical in Platos eyes, because if it is beneficial to both parties it must be virtuous. For example if a polis had an unclean water source that was causing disease. One of the legislators knew of this problem and also knew a solution, except that the solution was too expensive. The use of emotional would be allowable in order to persuade the community that something must be done, as it affects both the legislator and the community. In regards to intentions, Gorgias is interested in the community, not himself. His intention is to share a truth that is beneficial to the community, which is aligned with Platos criteria for ethical use of emotional appeal. Similar to Gorgias, the difference of civic virtue and true virtue is discussed in Platos Protagoras. Protagoras states that virtues are

Vaughn 4 established by any given community, and therefore must be taught (Klinger 462). Plato has Protagoras state, But when they meet to deliberate about political virtue, which proceeds only by way of justice and wisdom, they are patient enough of any man who speaks of them, as is also natural, because they think that every man ought to share in this sort of virtue, and that states could not exist if this were otherwise. (Protagoras Excerpt 5) These virtues, or truth, define what is ethical and what is not, which in turn establishes when emotional appeals are appropriate. Plato would agree that truth defines what is ethical, however that truth and the ethical presentation is not based on socially accepted virtues (Klinger 462). In sharing civic virtue among community, Protagoras insisted against holding anything above question, in fact it was the answers to these questions that defined democratic interaction (Klinger 463). Protagoras sought to teach others to make the less persuasive and the apparently less plausible into being more persuasive. This included the use of emotional appeal in order to question social norms, what is ethical to the community, in order to provoke change (Klinger 463). The focus of the greater sophists on democracy does not mesh well with Platos opinion, which is clearly expressed in The Republic. Plato views democracy as allowing the unwashed masses to rule. He uses the metaphor of a ship captain and its sailors to criticize the workings of a democracy. In the words of Plato,

Vaughn 5 Imagine then a ship or a fleet in which there is a captain who is taller and stronger than any of the crew, but who is a little deaf and has a similar infirmity in sight, and whose knowledge of navigation is not much better. The sailors are quarreling with one another about the steeringevery one is of the opinion that he has a right to steer, though he has never learned the art of navigation. (The Republic 4) Therefore according to Plato, any use of emotional appeal by the masses as participants in politics are unethical, because they have not learned the art of governance and therefore have no right to rule. This is an important distinction to make between the sophists, who view that any citizen has a ethical to use emotional appeal for the betterment of society, whereas Plato only sees the learned men, knowledgeable in the art of navigation as able to use emotional appeal in an ethical manner. In his essay, Sophist Definition of Rhetoric, Poulakos attempts to redefine the third part of the Greek rhetoric trilogy, which includes Plato and Aristotle. He states that, rhetoric is the art, which seeks to capture in opportune moments that which is appropriate and attempts to suggest that which is possible. (Poulakos 36) He then discusses each of these in greater detail and their importance not only to the truth of speech, but also the presentation and effectiveness of that speech. In order to effectively use speech, Poulakus discusses style, the opportune moment, the appropriate, and the possible. To dynaton, or the possible, allows the audience to take

Vaughn 6 ownership of a certain part of any speech. This, in a sense, is an appeal to emotions in that it gives the audience hope or delight based on the content of the speech, which in actuality was all due to the speaker. This appeal to emotion is necessary, according to Poulakus because it is, asking [the audience] to abandon the shelter of their prudential heaven and opt for that which exits by favor of human imagination and effort. (Poulakus 45) This transition from actual to imagination requires suspending disbelief. This in many ways is an emotional appeal that takes an audience from something they always believed and give them something hopeful and different. The lesser sophists, personified by Polus and Callicles, present quite a different opinion of ethics, truth, and emotional appeal, one that Plato finds simply detestable. Plato uses the characters Polus and Callicles in the Gorgias . At one point when arguing with Socrates, Callicles states that, A man that is going to live a full life must allow his desires to become as mighty as may be and never repress. (Gorgias 60) This opinion, shared by Polus, displays a completely different definition from Plato, the greater sophists, and Aristotle. According to this passage, the lesser sophists view the use of rhetoric for personal gain as ethical. The use of rhetoric can and should be used to gain power. Callicles would also consider the opposite of serving desires as unethical. According to Callicles if a man is considering with the well being of the community he is a slave, and how can a man be happy if he is a slave to anything? (Gorgias 61) The differences from Plato are quite obvious here. This is the opposite of the acceptable intention

Vaughn 7 according to Plato. The acceptable intention for Plato requires benefit for both parties. For Callicles it is possible for both parties to benefit, however it is the intent of the speaker that defines its motives. For example a car salesmen is paid off of commission and therefore attempts to sell cars to increase his salary. It is possible that any buyer will benefit from the sale, however the salesman is only interested in raising his commission. He thus employs a selfish use of rhetoric. According to Callicles the use of anything necessary, including emotional appeal, to satisfy desires is perfectly ethical (Gorgias 61). Finally Aristotle, a student of Plato, presents the most complicated account of ethics and the use of emotional appeal, which is quite different from the lesser sophists but somewhat similar to the greater sophists at least in intention. In his essay On Rhetoric, Aristotle states that ethics is equal to politics (On Rhetoric Book I 2, 7). In this he is similar to the greater sophists and their importance of ethics in the community. If ethics is equivalent to politics, and politics is how a society is run, then one could infer that Aristotle is saying, similar to the sophists, that what is ethical is determined by the community or the politic. In addition, Aristotle differs from Plato in the location of truth. Where Plato finds it in the divine origin of the soul, Aristotle sees truth as being grounded in nature (On Rhetoric Book I, 24). In his four reasons for supporting rhetoric, Aristotle states that, even if we are to have the most exact knowledge, it would not be very easy for us in speaking to use it to persuade some audiences. (On Rhetoric Book I, 1, 12)

Vaughn 8 He also mentions, it is not sufficient to know what one ought to say, but necessary also to know how one ought to say it. (Poulakus 37) Aristotle is thus very clear that, in certain scenarios, more than just the truth is necessary. Therefore, if the true and the just are by nature stronger than the opposites then the true and just need rhetoric in order to persuade, thus Aristotles available means of persuasion (On Rhetoric Book I, 1, 12). Logos, pathos, and ethos make up Aristotle three available means of persuasion. Although Aristotle places more importance on logos in persuasion, logos cannot survive on its own. A speaker must have credibility, ethos, and knowledge of the emotions (pathos. Pathos, or the use of emotions, is allowable and, in Aristotles mind, necessary in order to persuade. Aristotle addresses emotions in depth in his second book where he states that, the emotions are those things through which, by undergoing change, people come to differ their judgments and which are accompanied by pain and pleasure. (On Rhetoric 113) Although he mentions it as one of the three important means of persuasion, Aristotle insists that users of rhetoric that involves emotional appeal to be mindful of the audiences emotions and what is causing such emotions. For example when addressing a crowd at the funeral of a deceased friend, knowledge of the audiences emotions is necessary when attempting to address them in any fashion. Without knowledge of emotions the speakers message would be completely lost of on audience. It is possible that Aristotle intends two purposes in his warning to speakers about emotions. Either he suggests this in order to

Vaughn 9 prevent speakers from taking unfair advantage of certain emotional situations, which he lists in Book II, or he wishes to make speakers aware of emotions in order that they may use pathos effectively. This, I believe, would be determined by whether the speaker was one of the true and just, which could be loosely related to Platos emphasis on the intentions of speaker. Ethics, according to Plato, is determined by intention. Where Plato differs from the sophists and Aristotle is what intentions are considered ethical. To Plato ethical intention is based on absolute truth and the pursuit of it. For the greater sophists, ethical intentions are defined by what is good for the community or polis. The lesser sophists ethics are defined by personal gain and desire. Aristotle, still debated today, can be compared to the greater sophists, in that what is good for the community or politics is ethical. Therefore ethical use of emotional appeal, for each rhetorician, is based on the users intention. Although Plato, Aristotle, and the Sophists differ greatly regarding truth, ethics, and the allowable use of emotional appeal, they are all connected by intention. If your intentions are good with respect to each rhetorician, then the use of emotional appeal will be ethical.