The Greeks believed that to be an orator, an individual had to be morally good. However, I'm on both sides of the fence with this thought. I neither disagree or agree for a few reasons. Aristotle taught his students some very crucial points about communication and a few of them are as follows (pg. 4):
For instance, Aristotle made sure his students were knowledgeable about how human emotions affected the orator's ability to persuade. Not only did he teach his students about the importance of pathos - the ability to arouse human emotions, but he further taught them about the importance of conducting an audience analysis. These two communication skills can be abused by "morally" and "not-so morally good" individuals. It really depends on what the orator is seeking. For example, does the orator want to persuade donors to help build a women's shelter? Well, first things first, whose in the audience and ,of course, what has been going on in the community that has people's emotions in an uproar? On the other hand, the KKK's orators also wanted to accomplish their goals. Therefore, the organization used human emotions and analyzed its audience, in order to get what they wanted.
Aristotle, also, taught his students about the different ways of improving style and delivery. Logos, the ability to use wording or logic to sway the audience, is of great importance when speaking. Abuse of this skill can be utilized to achieve desired results by either "morally good or bad" orators. For instance, our politicians use this skill in their sleep. Take a moment to think about all the great speeches and the results of some of those speeches once the politician took office. Furthermore, think about the "morally incorrect" behavior some of these politicians revealed (accidentally, of course), once they were in office. Lawyers are also a good example. The jury isn't focused so much on the Lawyer's (the orator's) character. The jury is more focused on the ethos, or personal character, of whom the lawyer is defending or prosecuting. However, lawyers are well trained to use logos, in order to try and achieve desired results for their clients.
As much as I would love to agree with the Greeks and say that an individual had to be morally good to be an orator, I just can't. I wish it was (and it should be) a perfect fit between goodness, truth, and public communication but it just isn't. We have those in the world who want to help others and we have those who choose to use their gift of speaking otherwise. It's daunting, but it's true.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I think it is important to think about the message of the orator during the speech and what the orator had to do to get there. Some would argue that a common member of society may have better morals than that of a politician. However, that person will most likely never make a public appearance, be seen on television, or be known outside his or her family and friends. Those who are quality orators are most often self-centered, and have no remorse for pushing others aside. If you are not heard, than what does your speech mean? Many notable figures, especially scientists, throughout the years, have altered their opinions, in order to be “heard.” If your speech is not accepted by the governing bodies, then your speech cannot reach the masses.
I find the comments about Truth, Goodness, and Public Communication were well thought out and gave me the impression that although we hope to have a society of well intentioned individuals, the reality is that we are not. And since we live in that society, WE need to be ever vigilant about what we hear and read.
I find Daronstory's comment to be rather intriguing in that (he/she) is looking at the motivation of the speaker (in this example scientists) in the delivery of their content. I would be pretty surprised if most audience's wouldn't pick up on the idea that the orator is self-centered and un-remorseful. I would hope that they would see through this mask of falsehood and reduce the number in the audience --which would result in the speaker not having a forum to spill his/her negativism.
I too agree with what you are saying. Everyone is human and no one is perfect, I don’t think that in order to be a good speaker you need to be morally good. There are a fair share of people out there that are choose to do immoral things but in no way does that make them a bad person on in any way have an effect on what they say. I believe the main focus needs to be on the message the speaker is trying to raise, instead of what that person that put them in the tabloids. A person needs to be educated in what they are speaking of and that is all that should matter. Today in society we are so quick to judge people just because of one bad mistake. Things shouldn’t be like that because we could truly be missing out on what that person has to say, and all because they chose to do something that in our eyes is considered to be immoral!!!!!
Post a Comment