I don't agree with how the Greeks believed that in order to be an orator an individual had to be morally good. Although the requirement sounds great and really should be true, History shows us that Orators aren't always Morally good. Unfortunately, Moral goodness lacks in the hearts of many past and present influential speakers. President Barrack Obama used the rhetoric and ambiguity of the word "change" to motivate people of the United States to elect him as the next president. When Obama promises “change,” he is able to unify very diverse constituencies, all of whom have their own interpretation of what he means. What change? As long as he remains ambiguous, all of those who want change will support him, even if the changes they want are all different. Many can argue that President Obama is morally good. Others can argue that he isn't morally good because he hasn't fully ended the war in Iraq. The bottom line is, you don't have to be a morally good person to be an orator. Hitler is an example of how a non-moral (monster) can still persuade and convince people to follow his political agenda. I do believe that there can be a connection between honest truth, public communication, and goodness. I just wish there were a lot more motivational orators who were true and practiced all three.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hello wfredo! In what ways do you think an audience would be effected if a speakers was found to be morally lacking? Would the audience reject the message? Would they reject the speaker? Do you think our Presidents, current and in the past, are morally good? When the American public finds out about moral indiscretions, how do they react?
ReplyDelete