PERSUASION AND THE
ETHICS OF PUBLIC
SPEAKING
Because 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 ETHOS
Each time you speak, people form impressions of
you
 Share audience concerns
 Cite reputable experts
 Use personal experience
 Be clear and interesting
 Consider different points of view
 Deliver 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 obligations

Tell the truth

Take responsibility

Avoid 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 CLAIMS
Claims 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 CLAIMS
Claims 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 agreement
2. 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



Be clear about what the audience should
understand and/or do at the end of your speech


Are you seeking passive agreement or immediate
action?
This is your plan of action
Be prepared to share this with the rest of the
class
ANALYZING POLICY CLAIMS
1.
2.
3.
Need—you must establish that there is a need for
change
 Burden of Proof—your obligation to prove that
change is necessary
Plan—you must have a plan to solve the problem
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 REASONING
Moves 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


Example
Fact 1: My physical education course last term was easy
Fact 2: My roommate’s physical education course was easy
Fact 3: My brother’s physical education course was easy
Conclusion: Physical education courses are easy
DEDUCTIVE REASONING
Draws 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
Example
1.
The U.S. Constitution guarantees all U.S. citizens the
right to vote
2.
Women are U.S. citizens
3.
Therefore, the U.S. Constitution guarantees women
the right to vote
CAUSAL REASONING
From 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
Example
Drinking soda will make you fat
Caution: post hoc, ergo propter hoc
ANALOGICAL REASONING
What 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
Example
If you’re good at racquetball, you’ll be good at PingPong
LOGICAL FALLACIES: FAULTY REASONING

Causal (post hoc, ergo propter hoc)


Bandwagon Fallacy


If “everyone” thinks it’s a good idea, then it must be
Either/Or Fallacy


Just because one event follows another does not
mean the two are related
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


Red Herring


Attacks an issue using irrelevant facts or arguments
as distractions
Appeal to Misplaced Authority


Attacks irrelevant personal characteristics of a
person, rather than attacking his or her ideas
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”)