September 10, 2024 by Donald Gorassini, howinfluenceworks.com
Aristotle (384-322 BCE) agreed with his teacher, Plato, that dialectic and rhetoric are valid forms of social influence. Dialectic would be preferable when the audience is willing and able to engage in the critical evaluation of a belief. Rhetoric would be necessary when the audience is unable or unwilling to engage in such appraisal. In all instances, the goal of the speaker is the enhancement of the listener.1
Aristotle viewed dialectic as a method of inquiry and debate that aims to discover the truth through reasoned argumentation and logical analysis. He believed dialectic should be grounded in sound reasoning and evidence, helping individuals to arrive at well-founded conclusions through dialogue and discussion.
One example of Aristotle’s use of dialectic is his exploration of ethics in his work “Nicomachean Ethics.” In this text, Aristotle engages in dialectical reasoning to examine various ethical questions, such as the nature of virtue, the pursuit of happiness, and the role of moral character. Through dialectic, Aristotle presents arguments, considers counterarguments, and ultimately seeks to arrive at a deeper understanding of ethical principles and human flourishing.
The main conclusion of Aristotle’s “Nicomachean Ethics” is that the highest good and ultimate goal of human life is eudaimonia, often translated as “happiness” or “flourishing.” He argues that eudaimonia is achieved through virtuous activity and living in accordance with reason, leading to a life of fulfillment and excellence.
Aristotle believed that the goal of rhetoric is to exploit an existing conviction. To persuade someone to sign an organ donation card, one effective approach would be to simply offer them the opportunity to sign the card. By framing it as a life-saving opportunity, which is a widely held value in society, the listener would sign the card to express the value.2
Aristotle proposed three techniques of influence: logos, ethos, and pathos. He favoured logos, a truncated form of argumentation. To implement this strategy, the speaker should start by setting a topic or narrative, known as topos. Referring to a card as a “donation” card can help create the perception that signing would be a pro-social and compassionate act.
Arguments could then be provided. These consist of two types, examples and enthymemes. Examples would be portrayals of altruistic conduct. In this case, listeners could be asked to think of how they help others, such as raising their children or aiding their elderly parents. This would serve as a reminder that they indeed value helping. An enthymeme defines the situation as an opportunity to express the value in question. In this case, referring to the card as a “donation” card would contribute to this purpose.
To illustrate further the use of topos and arguments, consider how rhetoric might be used to promote preventive medicine as an alternative to organ transplantation. Take the example from the previous blog of a transplant surgeon arguing that preventive medicine would save considerably more lives than, and at some point render obsolete, organ transplantation. The topos here is a combination of support for scientific innovation and support for more lives saved. Arguments could then be used to suggest a relevant course of conduct. Examples of innovation in the field of preventive medicine, such as the vaccines that render us immune to deadly diseases, could be cited. The listener could then be encouraged to support scientific innovation by donating money to preventive medicine. This would include specific instructions on where to give.
(Requesting that listeners refrain from signing the organ donation portion of their driver’s licence might not be a good idea. It could be construed as cruel and might risk listener rejection of the entire message.)
Ethos refers to the credibility of the communicator. Listeners will tend to go along with an advocacy if the speaker is deemed expert, virtuous, and of good will. This factor gains particular strength when the listener lacks the ability or motivation to evaluate a message. In the case of organ donation, a transplant surgeon arguing against self-interest would be deemed credible. For the typical listener, who lacks expertise in medicine, it would be perfectly reasonable to accept this speaker’s arguments on faith.
Pathos, the emotional state of the listener, can influence judgment and persuasion. In the case of supporting organ transplantation for someone who has terminal liver disease, the empathy and desire to provide relief override logical reasoning, leading the listener to not consider alternative solutions.
Aristotle also spoke to style elements that would make messages persuasive. Use clear and understandable language to convey ideas. Ensure accuracy and precision in expression. Employ imagery and vivid language to make arguments more compelling. Adapt the style to suit the audience, context, and purpose of the communication.
The ideal means of social influence is dialectic, but if such a method is not possible, rhetoric can be used to instil virtuous conduct. Rhetoric would help ground more people quickly in high values, with the hope that everyone would eventually (if they could) apply critical thinking to relevant issues in their lives.
- See, for example, Aristotle and, separately, Aristotle’s Rhetoric, in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. ↩︎
- Aristotle discussed rhetoric in his work titled Rhetoric. In this treatise, Aristotle explores the art of persuasive speaking, examining its components, techniques, and ethical considerations. ↩︎
Leave a Reply