PERSUASION AND THE ETHICS OF PUBLIC SPEAKINGBecause Aristotle Knew What He Was Talking About

PERSUASION Process of changing or reinforcing attitudes,

beliefs, values, and behaviors

Ethos, Pathos, and Logos Ethos—credibility Pathos—emotional appeal Logos—logical appeal (reasoning & evidence)

People will be persuaded by one or more of these reasons

QUALITIES OF POSITIVE ETHOS Credibility—whether you are qualified to speak on

a given topic Competence Character

Establish Credibility Competence—informed, skilled, knowledgeable Trustworthiness—believable and honest Dynamism—energy (charisma)

Enhance Credibility Initial Derived Terminal

STRENGTHEN YOUR ETHOSEach time you speak, people form impressions of you

Share audience concerns Cite reputable expertsUse personal experienceBe clear and interestingConsider different points of viewDeliver with dynamism

APPEALING TO EMOTIONS (PATHOS) Fundamental to motivating an audience Never a substitute for logical arguments and

available evidence Dimensions of emotion = pleasure, arousal, power Be ethical when using emotion. Use:

Concrete examples Emotion-arousing words Visual images to evoke emotion Appropriate metaphors and similes Appropriate fear appeals Appeal to several emotions; hope, pride, courage,

etc.

ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS Avoid deception and manipulation Recognize and respect power of emotions Avoid distraction and disorientation Don’t overwhelm audience Use emotional appeals to supplement and

complement well-reasoned arguments

MORE ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS Have ethical goals and use ethical means Ethical dilemmas

Professional obligations can create A conflict of responsibilities A choice between “the lesser of two evils”

Circumstances can create Situations dictate a change Does the end justify the means?

ETHICAL GUIDELINES Are your purposes consistent w/ prevailing

norms? Would you violate your own ethics by speaking

out? Are you willing to stick to your ethical principles? What are the ethical standards?

Your basic ethical obligationsTell the truthTake responsibilityAvoid plagiarism(!!!)

THE ETHICAL SPEAKER Is not expected to be perfectly objective Provides good arguments, sound reasoning

and solid evidence Remains open to new information Is well informed and fully prepared Contributes useful presentations

BUILDING AN ARGUMENT (LOGOS) Use logic and evidence to persuade

Logic—System of rules for making inferences Reasoning—Process of drawing conclusions from evidence Evidence—Facts, examples, statistics, expert opinions

Claims Debatable assertion by speaker Takes a side on an issue and invites debate A statement with which you want your audience to agree

Types of Claims Fact Value Policy

TYPES OF CLAIMS

FACT CLAIMSClaims about the truth or falsity of an assertion Involve existence, scope or causality Questions about past / present Predictions of the future Require empirical proof: real examples,

statistics, and expert testimony

Example:To persuade my audience that William Shakespeare did not write the plays attributed to him.

VALUE CLAIMSClaims about the worth, rightness, and morality of an idea or action Involve what we consider good or bad, right or

wrong Focus on what we believe to be appropriate,

legal, ethical or moral Determine how we should evaluate facts, ideas

or actions

Example:To persuade my audience that bicycle riding is the ideal form of land transportation.

POLICY CLAIM

Claim about whether a specific course of action should or should not be taken Determine our future actions Deal with how to solve problems Evaluate options by costs, feasibility,

advantages and disadvantages “Should” is either stated or implied

Two kinds of policy claims:1. Speeches to gain passive agreement2. Speeches to gain immediate action

SPEECHES TO GAIN PASSIVE AGREEMENT Goal is to convince audience that a given

policy is desirable without encouraging the audience to take action in support of it.

Example:To persuade my audience that there should be stricter safety standards on amusement park rides.

To persuade my audience that the age for full driving privileges should be raised to 18.

SPEECHES TO GAIN IMMEDIATE ACTION Goal is to convince the audience to take

action in support of a given policy

Examples:To persuade my audience to vote in the next presidential election. (i.e. everyone old enough to vote should vote)

To persuade my audience to become literacy tutors. (i.e. you should be a literacy tutor)

ACTIVITY Write your topic on a piece of paper Write a policy claim about your topic

Are you seeking passive agreement or immediate action?

Be clear about what the audience should understand and/or do at the end of your speech This is your plan of action

Be prepared to share this with the rest of the class

ANALYZING POLICY CLAIMS1. Need—you must establish that there is a need

for change Burden of Proof—your obligation to prove that

change is necessary2. Plan—you must have a plan to solve the

problem 3. Practicality—Does your solution solve the

problem? Does it create new problems? Has this plan worked elsewhere? How has this plan been implemented elsewhere?

REASONABLE ARGUMENTS Qualified at a level appropriate to the strength

of the reasoning and evidence behind it Words that indicate our level of confidence Examples: “possibly”, “probably”, or “beyond any

doubt” Recognize reservations

Exceptions to our claim, or conditions under which we no longer hold the claim

“Unless” Evidence

Consider the criteria or standards that support your evaluation

Reflect on the rules, principles or standards we employ in making judgments

Tests: quality, relevancy, amount

FORMS OF REASONING

INDUCTIVE REASONINGMoves from a set of specific examples to a general conclusion

A number of representative examples makes the case Claims must be carefully qualified Reservations may be needed Can be strengthened with evidence

ExampleFact 1: My physical education course last term was easyFact 2: My roommate’s physical education course was easyFact 3: My brother’s physical education course was easyConclusion: Physical education courses are easy

DEDUCTIVE REASONINGDraws a conclusion about a specific case based on generally accepted premise

Usually we reason from qualified premises to probable conclusions

Premises are often already accepted by audience Speaker may assume the audience will fill in the missing

premise Syllogism is a classic example

Example1. The U.S. Constitution guarantees all U.S. citizens the right

to vote2. Women are U.S. citizens3. Therefore, the U.S. Constitution guarantees women the

right to vote

CAUSAL REASONINGFrom effect to cause, or cause to effect

At the heart of scientific investigation Rarely simple Reputable sources are important Qualified due to complexity Can be difficult to claim causation

ExampleDrinking soda will make you fat

Caution: post hoc, ergo propter hoc

ANALOGICAL REASONINGWhat is true in one case will be true in another

Literal analogy compares similar examples Figurative analogy is similar to metaphor; rarely

proves anything Should be qualified

ExampleIf you’re good at racquetball, you’ll be good at Ping-Pong

LOGICAL FALLACIES: FAULTY REASONING Causal (post hoc, ergo propter hoc)

Just because one event follows another does not mean the two are related

Bandwagon Fallacy If “everyone” thinks it’s a good idea, then it must be

Either/Or Fallacy Argues that there are only two approaches to solving

a problem, thus ignoring the complexity of the issues and other possible solutions (e.g. “it’s either vote for higher property taxes or close the library”)

Hasty Generalization Reaches a conclusion from too little/nonexistent

evidence (i.e. just because something happens in one case does not mean it will happen in all cases)

LOGICAL FALLACIES, CONT. Ad Hominem

Attacks irrelevant personal characteristics of a person, rather than attacking his or her ideas

Red Herring Attacks an issue using irrelevant facts or arguments

as distractions Appeal to Misplaced Authority

Relies on celebrated or popular people to endorse an idea, rather than relying on experts

Non Sequitur (it does not follow) Your conclusion does not follow from your statement

(e.g. “a new parking garage should not be built on campus because the grass on the football field is not well-maintained”)