Set A-1:  The relationship between the study of rhetoric and the development of virtue or an ethical sense has been debated since classical times.  Discuss how views of this relationship have changed over time, or compare the issue across the Greek/Roman, Indian, and Chinese traditions we’ve discussed.

            The notion that ethics and virtue are by necessity linked to the study and practice of rhetoric has been in evidence since the earliest recorded histories of rhetoric.  The notion was one of the cornerstones of Greek rhetorical theory, and elements are also found in Chinese and Indian texts.  However, each culture presents their own view and interpretation of the importance of virtue and ethics in correlation with rhetoric.  For the majority of Greeks, ethics and rhetoric could not be separated.  To be a good rhetorician you must also be a virtuous man.  This philosophy is one of the cornerstones of the basis for Greek rhetoric.  However, the Chinese and Indian viewpoints on ethics and rhetoric were slightly different.  In China, a progression takes place from morality and rhetoric being intrinsically linked together to a splintering of ethics and rhetoric that was dependent on the philosophical viewpoint of the time period.  In Indian cultures the linking of ethics and rhetoric is even further complicated in that they recognize different types of rhetoric, and based upon what type of rhetoric you practice your level of ethical argumentation is decided. 

            The combination of ethics and rhetoric has been present in Greek theory of argumentation since its inception.  One could argue that to many of the Greek philosophers the possession of a virtuous character was an essential cornerstone to being a good rhetorician.  In many of the early Greek works two different debates were presented.  The first debate put forward was that sophists and by extension rhetoricians were inherently morally corrupt because they favored the ordering of words to persuade an audience more than the truth and validity of the words being used to persuade.   The philosopher’s who argued this viewpoint stated that rhetoric’s cared more for how something was said than what was being said.  Eventually, however, the argument shifts to include virtue and ethics as a necessary part of rhetoric and argumentation.  This is seen clearly in Plato’s description of the dialogue between Socrates and Gorgias, where Socrates argues against Gorgias about the necessity and importance of ethics in argumentation.  Gorgias begins by arguing that rhetoricians are superior to philosophers because they can persuade anyone through their skill of argumentation.  Gorgias gives the specific example of being able to influence a physician to apply treatments to a patient that they physician knows is unnecessary.  He uses this example to prove the superiority of the study of rhetoric without the accompanying importance of ethics.  However, Socrates then goes on a lengthy argument to prove the opposite. 

            Socrates begins his argument by outlining two different types of rhetoricians.  He states, “I am contented with the admission that rhetoric is of two sorts; one, which is mere flattery and disgraceful declamation; the other, which is noble and aims at the training and improvement of the souls of the citizens, and strives to say what is best, whether welcome or unwelcome, to the audience” (Gorgias).  He goes on to compare Gorgias’ type of rhetoric to his first example of rhetoric which is merely flattery and falsehood.  He then challenges his audience to find a rhetorician who lives up to his ideal of a virtuous rhetorician who is concerned with what is noble and best.  He argues that only this type of rhetoric, where the aim is to accomplish justice and “what is best”, is the correct type of rhetoric that should be taught.  Further on in the work Socrates expounds on this notion of correct rhetoric when he states, “And will not the true rhetorician who is honest and understands his art have his eye fixed upon these, in all the words which he addresses to the souls of men, and in all his actions, both in what he gives and in what he takes away? Will not his aim be to implant justice in the souls of his citizens mind take away injustice, to implant temperance and take away intemperance, to implant every virtue and take away every vice?” (Gorgias).  Socrates argument that a true rhetorician must be honest and aim to impart justice and virtue to his audience becomes the leading perspective in Greek culture regarding rhetoric.  While some areas still focus mainly on the compositional elements of rhetoric it becomes the cannon of Western philosophy and rhetoric for many years that to be a good rhetorician you must also be a virtuous man. The two are intrinsically linked together and cannot be separated.

In ancient China there was also a direct correlation between rhetoric and morals.  Lu Xing in his description of Chinese rhetoric states that, “The domains of ming and bian at times overlap in the ancient Chinese texts, but each also has its own distinctive function, with ming aiming to seek truth and justice and bian concerning the art of discourse and persuasion” (4).  The combination of ming and bian, Lu Xing infers, seeks to combine the use of ethics with the art of argumentation.  However, this combination is slightly different than the Greek’s interpretation of morality and rhetoric.  Whereas the Greek’s looked at ethics as a necessary qualification of a rhetorician throughout its time span, the Chinese’s view evolved in a different manner.  In the earliest parts of Chinese history rhetoric was used to influence the “morality, order and hierarchy” of the Chinese people (Xing, 6).  Morality was a part of the rhetoric as well as the aim of the rhetoric.  However, as time progressed and the Chinese culture went through different political changes their use and view of morality and rhetoric shifted as well.  By 722-221 B.C. Lu Xing states that, “the direct and straightforward pattern of communication previously perceived and practiced had become indirect and evasive, with its purpose more oriented toward manipulation than moral perfection” (7).  As the many different forms of Chinese philosophies were created, each focused on different elements as essential aspects of their philosophies.  While some philosophies, such as The School of Confucianism which focused on “the moral impact of speech and moral character of the speaker on the cultivation and transformation of ethical behavior and social order” still focused on morality as a cornerstone of rhetoric, other philosophies emphasized argumentation or persuasion as superior to ethics (Lu Xing 7).  Thus as the Chinese history and philosophical viewpoints progressed so did their views on the importance of ethics in combination with rhetoric.

            In the Indian’s Nyaya Sutra a differing viewpoint from both the Greek’s and the Chinese is given.  Instead of morality and rhetoric existing exclusively together, the Nyaya Sutra gives three different types of rhetoric and then assigns a level or morality to each type.  In Keith Lloyd’s article, “Rethinking Rhetoric from an Indian Perspective: Implications in the Nyaya Sutra”, Lloyd gives the following summation of the Indian perspective of morality and rhetoric:

“The Nyaya Sutra begins: ‘Supreme felicity is attained by the knowledge about the true nature of the sixteen categories’ (Ramakrishnan and Moore 358). ‘Felicity means liberation from ignorance and release from the common human condition of desire and fear. Three types of debate…aid or hinder this process. Helpful is ‘honest’ debate (vaya), ‘where both sides are seeking truth.’ Hindering are ‘tricky’ debate (jalpa), ‘where the goal is to wind by fair means or foul,’ and ‘destructive debate’ (vitanda), where the goal is to defeat or demolish the opponent, no matter how’ (Matilal 2)” (Lloyd 367-368).      

For the Indian’s ethics and rhetoric were closely tied together.  If you were an ethical person you would practice the vaya form of rhetoric where you seek to influence the other person by together seeking the truth through shared perceptions and experiences.  This is a distinct difference from contemporary Western rhetorical culture where the goal is to win the argument regardless of the means required to get there.  The Nyaya Sutra’s other two types of rhetoric, jalpa and vitand, are viewed as unethical because they do not seek to attain truth through cooperation and joint understanding. Instead they employ trickery or deceit to persuade the audience to the rhetor’s point of view.  Thus if you practice the vaya form of rhetoric you are considered a trustworthy person, but if you practice the jalpa or vitand versions you can be viewed as ethically corrupt. 

            In addition to the Nyaya Sutra’s description of the three types of rhetoric a distinction between Greek and Indian logic and ethics is also enumerated by Lloyd.  Lloyd claims that while Greek arguments can be valid and untrue at the same time, that same phenomenon is impossible in Indian rhetoric because of the Indian approach to logic and rhetoric (373).  He states that in the Indian method of argumentation “truth and validity occur at once because the argument must be ‘fruitful’” (373).  Due to the way in which arguments are constructed in Indian culture, it is impossible to make a logically valid untrue statement.  This in itself provides a deeper level of morality to Indian rhetoric because the composition of Indian rhetoric and argumentation has to be based upon valid truths.  Additionally, according the Simonson in Lloyd’s article, in Greek rhetoric you could aim to win the argument and still be ethical, however, in Indian argumentation, if you seek to win the argument your intentions must by nature be false (374-375).  This demonstrates another layer to ethical motives within rhetoric in that while the Greeks believed that you could maintain true virtue while practicing argumentation, in the Indian culture you could not maintain both virtue and desire to persuade at the same time. Instead you must focus on the mutual finding of truth and knowledge through discourse without the desire to dominate or win in the discussion.