Objectivity

Through Treatise on Rhetoric, one learns Aristotle’s views on the role of the rhetor, the rhetor being a presenter of a logical argument (see Palmer and McDonald). Arguments were integral to Grecian politics and law; therefore, the person who could convince an audience of a fact was powerful; this skill was respected. The primary role of the rhetor was to convince the audience of a fact. The Grecian orator was concerned with persuading the listener of a logical conclusion that had been developed through an intelligent analysis of a set of circumstances. Aristotle wrote, “the pleader’s business is nothing more than to prove the matter of fact, either that it is, or is not the case; that it has, or has not happened” (Aristotle 1995:3). However, it was not the role of the orator to personally decide the quality of a fact. A fact existed, regardless of one’s perspective of it, and it was the rhetor’s place to prove the existence of a situation for evaluation. Therefore, Aristotle goes on to say:

“But as to the question whether it [the fact] be important or trifling, just or unjust, whatever questions of this nature the legislature has not determined, on these the judge must somehow or other make up his mind of himself, and not take instructions on them from the parties at issue” (Aristotle 1995:3-4).

Objectivity is defined as, "(1.) the state of quality of being objective; (2) external or material reality." This definition disregards the judgement of the audience, and it rely soley on the rhetor's evaluation of the facts, which are independent of all judgement. In this manner, a rhetor was an objective relay of information between situation and evaluator. It is the responsibility of the rhetor to impartially make a case.

Ethics

Aristotle, though, made a value judgment on the type of information to be proven, showing bias; the choice to argue a point should be measured on a grander scale than the rhetor’s view alone. While he did not advocate the rhetor proving what the rhetor itself would consider moral, i.e., advocate the orator’s personal opinion, he did advocate the rhetor proving what had been universally accepted as moral by society. He believed that a respectable rhetor would accept only an ethical issue to debate. This concept may be likened to a lawyer accepting a case to prove one’s innocence rather than one’s right to a defense.

“Aristotle assumes as a starting point a general grasp of which kinds of behavior are subject to moral assessment on legal dispute….He sets out to clarify and to some extent correct commonly held views about the conditions under which blame can be shown to be unjustifiable” (Hughes 2001:129).

Aristotle believed that humankind was accountable for a certain ethical standard and that this ethical standard is inborn, that humankind automatically leaned toward good and should promote only good. Although facts of different situations vary, the nature of humankind did not. Therefore, the audience was a given; the facts were variable. This given audience could be expected to come to an ethical conclusion when presented with these facts; it is human nature—a normal human that is—to choose good.

“Now as we call that good, which, independently, for its own sake, and not on account of anything else, is an object of choice; that, too, which everything desires; and which, if invested with intelligence and practical wisdom, everything would choose…is the end” (Aristotle 1995:45).

Aristotle, therefore, believed the responsibility of the rhetor was to use rhetorical skills in an impartial manner to prove the facts of a situation according to a universally accepted partiality.

Methods

Aristotle also dictated the methods by which an argument may be presented. Ideally, facts spoke for themselves, and, in such a case, laws and conventions decide the matter. However, in cases where discernment (thus a rhetor) was necessary, the rhetor was to present facts in conjunction with using persuasive techniques to affect a particular outcome, i. e., the universal, or the greater, good. The presenter was responsible for using rhetorical skills to display evidence to convince.

“Now of the means of effecting persuasion, some originate in the art, others independently of it. By inartifical I mean whatever are not furnished forth by our own means, but which are in existence already, as witnesses, torture, deeds, and all of this kind; by artificial, such as be got up my means of the system and by our own talents. So that as regards these, we have to employ the one class, to discern the other” (Aristotle 1995:11-2).
 

To affect such an argument, three means are offered: “some consist in the character of the speaker; others in the disposing the hearer a certain way; others in the thing itself which is said, by reason of its proving, or appearing to prove the point (Aristotle 1995:12). In other words, to convince an audience, the rhetor may induce respect from the audience, may endear the audience to himself or herself, or may pose an irrefutable argument.

In the first method, Aristotle believed that convincing an audience that the speaker is reputable was as important as convincing it of the facts of a case because a respect for the speaker created trust in the speaker. In such a case, even if the facts were questionable, the orator elicited the desired outcome because of the audience’s consideration for the presenter, despite the uncertainty. We read, “moral character nearly, I may say, carries with it the most sovereign efficacy in making credible” (Aristotle 1995:12). The effectiveness of the orator’s argument depended on the reputation the orator had developed. How well the argument was perceived relied on the audience’s perception of the rhetor.

The second method exhorted rhetors to endear themselves to the audience—specifically, to know the audience’s sentiment in order to align with it emotionally. For, given an option,

“the number of a popular assembly and the judge decide on points actually present and definite; and under their circumstances, feelings of partiality, dislike, and personal expedience, will, in many instances, antecedently have been interwoven with the case; and to such a degree, that one is no longer able, adequately, to contemplate the truth, and that personal pleasure or pain throws a shade over the judgment” (Aristotle 1995:4-5).

He continued, “that we should form a guess, some how or other, as to the opinions which our audience happen to have taken up with; then speak on these subjects generally conformably to them” (Aristotle 1995:174). Aristotle believed that the rhetor should play on the sentiments of the audience in order to win its approval. Appearing sympathetic to the audience’s opinion endeared the rhetor to the audience, increasing the chances of winning the argument.

In the third method, a logical argument would convince an audience of a fact. Aristotle stated that the syllogism, specifically the enthymeme (a syllogism in which one of the premises or the conclusion is not stated explicitly), was an important means of persuasion because of humankind’s, “tolerable natural tendency toward that which is true” (Aristotle 1995:7). The philosopher believed that the enthymeme was a way to establish truth; the human tendency toward truth is similar to its tendency toward good. Given all the facts of a case, a normal human almost could not help but realize the truth. Therefore, it was the rhetor’s responsibility to present all of the facts in a logical manner for the benefit of the audience’s nearly inevitable conclusion.

Ignorance

A final responsibility for Aristotle’s rhetor was to have a good command of the subject; however, the rhetor was not held accountable for decisions made in ignorance. As paradoxical as this statement may seem, it is explained as follows: an orator has an obligation to expend effort to study a situation in order to be prepared to intelligently argue a case and to refute adversarial arguments, but, having done so, the orator is not responsible for the audience’s misdirection should the premise not be legitimate because misdirection was not the intention. When discussing the requirements of enthymemes, Aristotle asserts that the rhetor:

“ought to be aware that it is necessary, respecting every subject on which you have to speak and to draw conclusions, whether it be through the medium of the rhetorical syllogism, or of any other whatsoever, to be masters either of all or some of the facts inherent in it” (Aristotle 1995:175).

But, he went on to say that, “those orators who accuse and defend, construct their accusations and defenses on a view of existing circumstances” (Aristotle 1995:176). The existing circumstances were solely what the speaker was responsible for. These circumstances included a universal base of intelligence—comparable to the universal standard of morality, discussed earlier—and there were certain things that a normal human being can be expected to know or realize. But, beyond this basic store of knowledge and the required research for a presentation, Aristotle excused much. Furthermore, remorse in retrospect was proof that an action was not to be held in fault. Feeling compunction for misdirection was proof that the result was unintentional; therefore, the fault did not really happen. As such was not the purpose, such was not the action. Hughes states, “it is central to Aristotle’s view that an agent sees himself as behaving in a particular way for reasons, and that this has to be taken into account when asking what the agent did” (2001:122). He continues, “the agent who acts in ignorance is unaware of the way in which his behavior would be seen by someone who knew the full facts of the situation. It is simplest to start with those cases where the agent, once he has found out the full facts, regrets what was done” (2001:123). Therefore, the orator was responsible for discussing a situation, as it was understood at that time, in that context.