The Three Modes of Persuasion

I often wonder if people find me cold or uncaring. Though nothing could be further from the truth, whenever I state my beliefs and "political" ideas, I sense that the other person or people think there is something deficient in my morality or character. Here, I would like to explain myself.

Aristotle laid out three modes of persuasion in his Rhetoric: ethos, pathos, and logos. Ethos is an "appeal to the authority or honesty of the speaker," and we derive the word "ethics" from it. Pathos "is an appeal to the audience’s emotions," from which we get "pathetic" (as well as a direct cognate). And logos "is logical appeal or the simulation of it," from which we get "logic." This is supposedly the order they were placed in Aristotle's book, but I do not think it is a good order at all. I say this, because I think one should find a way to employ at least two of these in an argument, but it is much better if all three are present. This covers the bases, so to speak, and makes an attempt for persuasion much more likely to succeed. As such, I place a hierarchy on the importance and order in which these three elements are introduced, and it is this: logos, ethos, pathos.

Logos
I am already touching upon what I think makes me seem cold. Practically all arguments I make start with reasoning, facts, data, theory, etc. Frequently, these are dispassionate (despite my passionate delivery of them), seemingly unkind, and possibly cruel. This is because I try to reach bedrock truth, where objectivity is supreme. My ability to objective is both a strength and a weakness. It allows me to be constantly levelheaded about things, but it frequently inhibits my ability to "be in the moment." One of my foundational principles is that the first, last, and most important piece of property you will ever own is your own person, the body, the mind, and the soul of it. Some can follow and see my point, but many frequently seize up at the hearing people referred to as "property" because of the history of slavery. I can understand this, but they forget the number one law of property rights: no one may take it, alter it, or destroy it, without the owner's permission. This should effectively eliminate concerns about slavery, since forcing one to work against one's will and without permission violates their property rights to their own person. Another principle of mine is that the only real rights you have in this world are all property rights. Life is a condition of owning your own body, so that is part and parcel; liberty, the freedom to do what one wants as long as it does not transgress against another's rights, is also subsumed under this, since another stipulation of property rights is the freedom of the owner to do with it as he pleases, whether it is improvement or destruction, and to achieve this, he must act to achieve the tools and supplies needed, and this requires a free but respectful interaction with others (in almost all cases). The third right we are familiar with, "the pursuit of happiness," is actually different from what was originally third, which was "property," but "the pursuit of happiness," in my book, has stock in life and liberty. Following this, the many rights bandied about these days are illegitimate. The right to water, food, shelter, an education, etc, are nice things to say, but fall flat in the face of reasoning (particularly my brand of "Terminal Extent Reasoning"). If I have the right to food, then it follows that I am entitled to it, that no matter what, I am bound by some law to own food, and any lack of ownership is a transgression against my right. If this is so, then food may be taken from another to achieve this end. This already flies in the face of property rights, but let's continue. Now, this person whose food stores are being emptied by the entitled must now go out and obtain more food so he can have some for himself. He must either produce it himself or work harder to earn money to purchase more. In effect, he is forced to labor so that part of his wealth may be turned over to others, which is slavery, the most contemptible form of disrespect for property rights. Entitlement leads to moral hazard, which is when people act in ways they wouldn't otherwise because risk has been artificially lowered, and this leads further to the inability to appreciate a thing's true worth, for if one can have something no matter what, they will value less.

"But what about the homeless" or the "poor" or the "starving?" This leads to pathos, which I will deal with later. Many people cannot get beyond the supposed heartlessness of the argument, and therefore think it is invalid. Yet, the central idea of this argument, that "no one owes you anything" (and therefore you owe no one else anything), is what instills self-reliance and responsibility where it should matter first: with yourself. They also overlook that another aspect of property rights is the freedom to give it away at whatever cost the owner deems appropriate, and this includes freely, what we otherwise call charity. People in more ancient times may have lacked the kindness we pride ourselves on these days, but they are no reason to think that people now are uncharitable. Indeed, as wealth increases for everyone, so does charitibility. But I'm getting ahead of myself.

Ethos
It is hoped that the soundness of logic will instill a sense of authority in the speaker, but if not, then authority must be offered. This is tricky, as it can easily result in the informal logical fallacy of "appeal to authority," where one argues that something is so because a person of authority in that field says it is so. This trades hearsay for reason. However, if you have made a sound argument, then letting your audience know by what authority you speak can help. Obviously, if you are an expert in the field, you can cite your credentials, but I say this should be backed up by an accounting for why you deserve the credentials. What if you don't have credentials? I am a musician and poet, but I frequently discuss and deal with "politics" and world affairs (I enquote politics because what I view what I deal with as human nature and the fundamentals of liberty; "politics" is a cancer that leaches off liberty, so I must contend with it), so what right have to speak on them? I read a good deal on the issues, and I constantly exercise my reasoning to gain a better understanding of the matter. My favorite way of dealing with doubters is to refer them to a book or article, not out of an "appeal to authority," but because it a.) shows that I am not a lone crackpot, that there are others saying these things, and b.) allows the doubting Thomas to read for himself where I get my ideas; it invites the audience to explore the issue themselves.

Then there is the concern for ethics. Much of the ethical argument, for me, is contained in the logical (in this case, it is unethical to transgress against property rights). What can really be done here is make the logical argument active, to apply it to real world situations and to appeal the listener's character and ethics. Slavery is against practically everyone's moral code, so here I would show how slavery is alive and well, only transfigured. I would should how a world built on my logical can coexist with my auditor's ethics and morals. And so. As can be seen, the three modes, though can be made distinct, frequently flow in and out of each other.

Pathos
This is the last tier of persuasion. If only it were so in life. In my short time on this planet so far, I would say that have observed quite deeply, and one thing I notice with great force is that there are three types of people who start their arguments with pathos and make it the central facet: 1.) those who have spoken with logic and ethic elsewhere and whose past arguments link up with the current one, and therefore can lend strength and credibility to it; 2.) the well-intending, good-hearted people who fail to see the logical and even ethical flaws in their case; 3.) nefarious types, like politicians, ("think of the children!") who disregard logic and ethic (they don't care about them, don't know them, or both) and play and manipulate people's emotions, frequently with fear. I immediately become very wary when someone tries to appeal to my emotions (particularly if the person is a charismatic), because the first type I listed is a rare exception, the second type, no matter how kind or nice, has an emptiness in their logic that could spell disaster if their ideas are implemented, and the third type is especially to be denounced. I swore some time ago to refuse to just let someone to power over me, and one way people do this is through controlling emotions. I allow someone to influence me if they make sound logical and/or ethical arguments, but appeals to my emotions without either of those will only harden me. I find that much of the world's problems these days stem from unchecked kindness, kindness that turns people practically into tyrants. "We must feed the starving" people say out of the goodness of their hearts, but then support and enforce policies whose unintended consequences result in more and worse misery. "Think of the children" a politician says, and then passes legislation that makes the child's, and everyone's, situation more terrible.

However, an appeal to emotions, and even fear, is essential to really clutching many people. Fear is good when it is based on solid reasoning. For example, there is much to fear about the economy these days, and people need to be made aware of it. But fear unsupported thus, particularly when peddled by the government, causes anger, hatred, hysteria, and the dissolution of intelligence, wisdom, ethics, and kindness. So, for an example, I would put my audience in the place of a person under the chains of my idea of slavery, and vividly tell them how I would feel, and how I think they would feel.

After all this, I would clinch my argument with a return to the logic, but this time I would likely put it in the warmer light of pathos. I don't think it is vital for an argument to have pathos, not in the way it is to have the first two modes, but it goes a long way in persuasion.

For myself, this is how I have to make my cases, because I would feel like a cheat, a swindler otherwise. I do care, very much, about the poor and downtrodden. But I can't let my emotions cloud what I know to be true, which is that the policies in place today to supposedly help them only makes things worse. When I argue from a purely logical standpoint, it is backed up very much with a passion for humanity and its betterment.