The Legitimacy of Rhetoric

2) leads one to the realization that the antecedent believes that "it is universally accepted that it is permissible to violate the right to biography of the aggressor to save an impoverished person." Bagaric (2005, p. 3) rejects the slippery slope line of merchandises which says that if spin is allowed in a limited context it will sire widespread, that it will further dehumanize society, and that there is no gage that agony will result in the saving of innocent lives. These statements strongly suggest that Bagaric (2005, p. 4) finds torture to be an acceptable bureau of gaining information about potential attacks or the threat of such(prenominal) attacks.

Using the Aristotelian and contemporary concept of ethos, Pearson (2005, p. 20) sees the other job as merely a "vulgar form of consequentialism, the philosophy that only consequences matter, especially in politics." This particular author refers to torture with such terms as "monstrous" and "arbitrary" and describes it as a "Kafka-esque nightmare" (Pearson, 2005, p. 21). The ethos being presented in this argument is steadfastly anti-torture and tends to affirm the contention that moral values and norms everywhere and ever mitigate against the use of torture even when it is possible (though it is never sure) that this process will reveal information that prevents the loss of action or harm to the innocent.

The two approaches reveal that Bagaric (2005, p. 1) is a consequentialist an

Judgment', Persuading People, Macmillan, Basingstoke,

The second rhetorical proof consists of pathos understood as an emotional appeal containing "an implicit fragment of 'binary opposition,' such as love/hate: courage/ fearfulness: joy/ grief" (Cockcroft & Cockcroft, 1992, p. 41). The persuader uses emotive rhetoric that is frequently vivid and graphic to convince the listener or the reference that something which might be construed as bad can at times be good.

One suspects that the reader of this pair of articles is unconvincing to be convinced by Bagaric (2005, p. 1) unless he or she is already effectively emotionally engaged with the perspective being presented.

The argument is unlikely to convince the listener who is sure that torture is non an acceptable act under any dowry or, to a greater extent simply, that the end does non justify the needs and consequentialist theories of ethics render short in providing moral guidance. This essay demonstrates nevertheless that to each one of these two writers employ elements of logos, pathos, and ethos in making a rhetorical case for their opposing views on an admittedly controversial subject.

The make love acting as the focal point for the ethos and pathos discussed olibanum faraway is the legitimacy of torture. One suspects that where Pearson (2005, p. 20) is referring to the Aristotelian categories of justice and applaud versus dishonor as described by Cockcroft and Cockcroft (1992, p. 79), Bagaric (2005, p. 2) is focused on what these authors and Aristotle consider to be expediency. The degree to which Pearson (2005, p. 21) succeeds on keeping a focus on what torture is and how it affects those who receive it and those who give it is far greater than the degree to which Bagaric (2005, p. 2) succeeds in shifting the issue from the ugliness aspects of torture to the consequences of this act which can in some circumstances be beneficial but which are certainly not always beneficial and which are always harmful.

This essay has used ideas adva
Order your essay at Orderessay and get a 100% original and high-quality custom paper within the required time frame.