Rhetorical Techniques
This is an excerpt from the paper...
In discussing the legitimacy of rhetoric, Aristotle proposed that three elements were to be found in most arguments: ethos, pathos, and logos, either of which or all of which could be used to construct legitimate arguments capable of persuading listeners to accept a particular point of view (Cockcroft and Cockcroft, 1992, p. 19-21). At issue herein is a rhetorical critique of two different articles, each on the subject of the legitimacy of torture as a means of obtaining information from an identified enemy that can be used at least in theory to achieve some positive outcome such as a reduction in the loss of life due to the acts of a terrorist or a terrorist organization. Mirko Bagaric (2005, p. 1) argues that "the belief that torture is always wrong is, however, misguided and symptomatic of the alarmist and reflexive responses typically emanating from social commentators." In contrast, Christopher Pearson (2005, p. 20) asserts that "the use of torture by the state is not legitimate, let alone morally imperative, because it is just too unreliable to be justified even on consequentialist grounds." The first rhetorical test or proof to be applied to these arguments is that of ethos which Aristotle refers to as the character or virtue of the speaker and which in modern usage as described by Cockcroft and Cockcroft (1992, p. 19) refers to "the set of values held by an individual or a community, reflected in their language, social attitudes, and behavior." This defini
. . .
ing some heinous crime that will damage the innocent.
Applying the notion of pathos to Pearson's (2005, p. 21) discussion leads one to immediately recognize that this author is not shying away from vivid descriptions of torture such as found in the statement "to pull out a fingernail of a terrorist in order to save a couple of million lives is morally right." For Pearson (2005, pp. 21-22), torture is a "deplorable means" that would inherently corrupt any end result that it might achieve. He uses the emotional appeal of comparing torture in the war on terror to torture used by such figures in history as Stalin, the leaders of the Spanish Inquisition, and Mao Zedong. He draws upon the literature to affirm that those who are tortured suffer enormously and those who torture also suffer.
When one compares these two arguments with respect to the rhetorical device of pathos it becomes clear that Pearson (2005, p. 20) offers a much stronger and more compelling characterization of torture. His appeal to pathos does not ignore logos or ethos but does in fact suggest that one cannot separate the part from the whole (Cockcroft and Cockcroft, 1992, p. 74). In other words, one cannot simply dismiss the evil aspects of torture by r
. . .
Some common words found in the essay are:
Cockcroft Cockcroft, Using Aristotelian, Mao Zedong, Christopher Pearson, Abu Ghraib, , Macmillan Basingstoke, Mirko Bagaric, Cockcroft SM, bagaric 2005, cockcroft cockcroft, pearson 2005, cockcroft cockcroft 1992, cockcroft 1992, 2005 2, Australian Vol, bagaric 2005 2, 2005 21, macmillan basingstoke pp, macmillan basingstoke, basingstoke pp, cockcroft sm 1992, cockcroft sm, 2005 20, cockcroft cockcroft sm,
Approximate Word count = 1985
Approximate Pages = 8 (250 words per page)
More Essays on Rhetorical Techniques
|
Customer Service
to Over
32,000 Professionally Written Papers!!!
