2). The Greeks believed that to be an orator, an individual had to be
morally good. Comment on whether you agree or disagree. What, if any,
is the connection between goodness, truth, and public communication?
I am conflicted on this one. I think it does give you a reputation if you are morally good; this was the ethos part of communication. Since orators were the ones teaching others, I would hope that they were morally good. However, people don't necessarily practice what they preach. The only reason I am conflicted is because in our current society people don't always tend to care if the person speaking is immoral. There have been so many scandals with politicians in the past few decades, but people still look up to them. I myself believe they should be morally good. I want the people I admire to have a high sense of morality. I find that I am less convinced by someone's argument if they have a questionable background. Orators were around in a time before gossip columns and 24 hour news cycles though. It was definitely easier to get away with having accommodating morals in that time period. These days you get publication of your wrong doing in so many different channels.
I was also conflicted on this one at the beginning, but then I decided to approach it in two different ways; one way answers the question if an orator must be morally good, and the other question argue if an orator should be morally good. I believe the answers are no for the first one and yes for the second. As you said, there are public speakers that are successful and persuasive, but known to be immoral. However, if we wish to better our world and search for truth and goodness, than we should also believe that the people that persuade others should be morally good.
ReplyDeleteI like that you challenge the morals of the Greek philosophers. The philosophy debate about morals is still alive, and things that considered being morally good in one culture may not appear morally good in another.
It is unfortunate that people do not always practice what they preach. It seems to be an ever growing epidemic in our society as well. I’m not sure however that society has reached a state of indifference in regards to the morality of its speakers. It may be more of a state of ambiguity. In many cases it can be difficult to discern what the underlying truth behind a person’s character is. We live in an era of information overload where the line between fact and fiction is often blurred by those presenting the information. When we are constantly surrounded by so much misinformation it can be overwhelmingly exhausting to uncover the truths around us.
ReplyDeleteI agree that there is lot's of media coverage into our orator's backgrounds. However I do not always think we should judge speakers solely based on what the media says. Half the time, they distort stories and people. I think the most important thing is to listen to what an orator has to say for ourselves & make interpretations. If there is any reason to further pursue their identity, then that is something we can do from our own sources. Again it seems that it would be important to determine what an orator's morals could be through the things that pass their lips. This is in addition to their actions of course, as they cannot be contrary to one another. Although it cannot always give us a positive depiction on who someone is, I think it often times is better than forming that opinion based upon another's word.
ReplyDelete