Week 4: Consider this . . .

Rhetoric is always concerned with ethics. An argument or appeal that employs tactics that are (to paraphrase Andrea Lunsford) unfair, inaccurate, or unprincipled in order to achieve a desired outcome violates the trust that exists between participants of an exchange. Logical, pathetic, and ethical fallacies, as we discussed in class today, do just that.

It is important to note, however, that identifying a fallacy is not always straightforward: like any rhetorical act, a fallacy is situated. It is, therefore, important to remember to assess before you judge: what may seem like a fallacious argument in one context could be a valid argument in another—depending on the audience, purpose, and underlying assumptions that inform the claim. With that in mind . . .

Bloggers this week should seek out a public argument and examine its rhetorical impact, validity, and ethicality. Selection criteria is wide open: you may select an argument that address a local, national, or global issue; you may select an argument from a speech (past or present), a campaign (presidential, advertising, et al.), an opinion/editorial column, or an offering from the ‘comments’ of an online news & opinion forum. You may examine any argument, from the serious to the absurd, as long as it engages in some meaningful way public affairs.

Respondents should examine both the argument selected by those posting blogs this week as well as their treatment of the argument. You may second their analysis, offer additional points to consider, or counter their analysis.