The Rhetoric of Ought: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Language » The Rhetoric of Ought » The Rhetoric of Ought

The Rhetoric of Ought
You must say 'ought'

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6

The Rhetoric of Ought

cortes
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2005
Total Topics: 39
Total Posts: 1390

Posted 05/09/08 - 08:22 AM:	#11
keda wrote: I think there are non persuasive ought claims, such that persuasion defeats its purpose. Such is expressing the interest in moral goodness of ones actions, which if are persuaded destroys the moral value in them. You raise a child to become independent, not to become an obedient slave. In doing so you try to teach him the virtue of doing good things not because you or anyone says to do it, but because he knows its the right thing to do. It is comparable to that of teaching mathematics. First you let your child practice with multiplication tables and teach them how to use formulas, giving them the raw material, but to understand it, their mathematical truth, he must take the decicisve step himself, and we can only provide all the means to do it. It is the same thing when you try to teach your child morals; you have to first teach them what is right and wrong in the same manner you enumerate multiplication tables, and hope your child will grasp the underlying moral law, the principle out of which you derive the examples. In fact, teaching children is the best example of ought as rhetoric. It's true that your goal as a parent is not to create obedient slaves but it is false to believe that your goal is simply to communicate descriptive truths on the assumption that they can make up their own minds. There is a big middle between those extremes. The most important job of a parent, beyond physical health, is imparting values. Parents impose their values on their children. When parents don't do this they tend to raise monsters. The less involved the parent in molding the child's moral development, the more likely that the child will fail as a human being. Even the most "permissive" parents are using rhetoric to persuade their children toward a particular pattern of behavior. Parents loosen the reigns as the child displays the desired behaviors of their own account.
Copyright (c) 2008 Hernan Cortes, Sociedad de los Conquistadores. cortes@conquistador.org http://www.conquistador.org

cortes
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2005
Total Topics: 39
Total Posts: 1390

Posted 05/09/08 - 08:32 AM:	#12
Reformed Nihilist wrote: Ought may be either (and perhaps both) rhetoric and descriptive. It describes the mores of a person or (more commonly) a culture in relation to an act the one ought or oughtn't do. This gives it rhetorical power beyond just "I would prefer is you didn't...". But by implying that rhetoric is simply "I would prefer is you didn't..." you are yourself reducing rhetoric to the descriptive. Rhetoric is, in the extreme, a verbal assault. More generally it is an imposition of will through language using what logicians would call "fallacies" such as appeals to emotion or authority. Or appeals to "goodness". The question is not whether one can find description (or logic) in the rhetoric of ought but whether one can understand ought merely as description. What distinguishes rhetoric in general and the ought family of words in particular is their imperative nature. In fact, even scientific communication is implicitly rhetorical: the writer seeks to impose ideas on the reader.
Copyright (c) 2008 Hernan Cortes, Sociedad de los Conquistadores. cortes@conquistador.org http://www.conquistador.org

keda
Ijon Tichy

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 25, 2005
Location: Finland
Total Topics: 28
Total Posts: 2829

Posted 05/09/08 - 08:47 AM:	#13
cortes wrote: In fact, teaching children is the best example of ought as rhetoric. It's true that your goal as a parent is not to create obedient slaves but it is false to believe that your goal is simply to communicate descriptive truths on the assumption that they can make up their own minds. There is a big middle between those extremes. I would not call it a mere communication of descriptive truths. An ought claim carry with an imperative of some sort that demands that you act in a specific way. I would not call it persusasion because it implies the exploitation of a specific weakness in whoever is persuaded, creating an illusion of objectivity of the claim. The most important job of a parent, beyond physical health, is imparting values. Parents impose their values on their children. When parents don't do this they tend to raise monsters. The less involved the parent in molding the child's moral development, the more likely that the child will fail as a human being. This is true and we can see it being exemplified in today's society to a large degree.
All about making money Free Europe Now How to fix your country The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. -Benjamin Franklin If my sons did not want wars, there would be none - Gutle Rothschild It's not the people who vote that count, it's the people who count the votes - Josef Stalin

Cuthbert
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 18, 2005
Total Topics: 22
Total Posts: 1682

Posted 05/09/08 - 08:59 AM:	#14
cortes wrote: If I say "you ought to be honest" what I mean is "be honest". But we know that imperative statements are not very effective in general so we dress up imperative statements in rhetoric. I think 'ought' statements do rather more than simple imperatives in at least two ways: 1. We can use them in any tense - e.g. Britain ought not to have declared war in 1939 - but there's no evident recipient of this 'imperative' and it's not clear what 'obeying' it might consist in. 2. We can use them conditionally - If I ought to be honest, then you ought to be honest too. I'm not telling you to be honest and I don't think you can analyse such a sentence in terms of imperatives. But I'd say there are certainly similarities with imperatives. One similarity perhaps is that when I issue an imperative I imply that there is some reason why you should obey it, without actually stating what that reason might be. When I say 'you ought to be honest', again I imply that there is some reason to be honest, but I don't actually give you the reason. 'Ought' statements are often fairly weak players in an argument, because they are place-holders for reasons, but don't constitute reasons in themselves.

Reformed Nihilist
Oblong

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Jul 15, 2004
Location: The mighty fortress of the north
Total Topics: 68
Total Posts: 7930

Posted 05/09/08 - 09:14 AM:	#15
cortes wrote: But by implying that rhetoric is simply "I would prefer is you didn't..." you are yourself reducing rhetoric to the descriptive. Rhetoric is, in the extreme, a verbal assault. More generally it is an imposition of will through language using what logicians would call "fallacies" such as appeals to emotion or authority. Or appeals to "goodness". That is a very extreme take on rhetoric. "Verbal assualt"? Persuasive speech is rhetoric. I'm not sure what is wrong with appealing to emotions or authority. Emotions (our own and those of others) and authority are very valuable considerations in making descisions in life. Often more important than "pure reason". You seem to use the word rhetoric in a prejorative sense, and I'm not sure why. The question is not whether one can find description (or logic) in the rhetoric of ought but whether one can understand ought merely as description. What distinguishes rhetoric in general and the ought family of words in particular is their imperative nature. As I mentioned, ought may be descriptive (entirely) of a cultures or persons mores. As is "We really oughtn't... but lets!". The speaker is clearly trying to convince someone to do something that she also believes they oughtn't do. In fact, even scientific communication is implicitly rhetorical: the writer seeks to impose ideas on the reader. Any usefull communication has an element of rhetoric in it.
Nobody ever became a famous philosopher by being a champion of ecumenical hybridism Daniel Dennett Freedom Evolves

cortes
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2005
Total Topics: 39
Total Posts: 1390

Posted 05/09/08 - 09:15 AM:	#16
keda wrote: I would not call it a mere communication of descriptive truths. An ought claim carry with an imperative of some sort that demands that you act in a specific way. I would not call it persusasion because it implies the exploitation of a specific weakness in whoever is persuaded, creating an illusion of objectivity of the claim. I think you have a negative view of persuasion (and I would guess of rhetoric as well). A mother who is trying to persuade her son to eat his vegetables will, indeed, "exploit specific weaknesses" toward that end. As noted above, the most common such weakness is our desire to be good or to be liked. The use of "ought" is a threat against that self-perception. Saying "you ought to be honest" is an attack on a person's goodness as surely as a flank maneuver is an attack on an enemies weakpoint. Please do not infer from this that I am condeming rhetoric. Quite the contrary, I am asserting that it is inherent to moral reasoning and argumentation. Hence you cannot speak of the good without exploiting weaknesses through persuasion.
Copyright (c) 2008 Hernan Cortes, Sociedad de los Conquistadores. cortes@conquistador.org http://www.conquistador.org

cortes
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2005
Total Topics: 39
Total Posts: 1390

Posted 05/09/08 - 09:22 AM:	#17
Cuthbert wrote: I think 'ought' statements do rather more than simple imperatives in at least two ways: 1. We can use them in any tense - e.g. Britain ought not to have declared war in 1939 - but there's no evident recipient of this 'imperative' and it's not clear what 'obeying' it might consist in. 2. We can use them conditionally - If I ought to be honest, then you ought to be honest too. I'm not telling you to be honest and I don't think you can analyse such a sentence in terms of imperatives. I agree with your point in the literal sense but not in the general sense. It is true, as the first sentence illustrates, that "ought" can be used to assert will in ways that are impossible (in your example, time travel), but if you consider the more general context you almost always find that the true point is not to ridicule dead white males but to make a contemporary point such as that enemies ought to be confronted before they gather too much momentum. In the second case, this is more descriptive pretense. The most general form is "If you were a good person you would be honest." But let's be honest, the speaker does not mean to leave it up to the listener to decide if he wants to be good. The speaker is invoking goodness as tactive of persuasion. The conditional is merely a rhetorical device to make it sound more descriptive. Cuthbert wrote: But I'd say there are certainly similarities with imperatives. One similarity perhaps is that when I issue an imperative I imply that there is some reason why you should obey it, without actually stating what that reason might be. When I say 'you ought to be honest', again I imply that there is some reason to be honest, but I don't actually give you the reason. 'Ought' statements are often fairly weak players in an argument, because they are place-holders for reasons, but don't constitute reasons in themselves. I think you are correct, what I noted I think in the OP is that "ought" stands for a whole bunch of unspoken stuff. Often they are used in the thesis and then elaborated but often they are surrounded only by a stern face or a shaking head. In any case, the purpose is to persuade, to motivate the reader/listener toward some end. Not simply to describe the world.
Copyright (c) 2008 Hernan Cortes, Sociedad de los Conquistadores. cortes@conquistador.org http://www.conquistador.org

unenlightened
ri t nd r tist

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Aug 10, 2007
Location: Wales
Total Topics: 20
Total Posts: 1718

Posted 05/09/08 - 09:25 AM:	#18
Perhaps we ought to bear in mind that the world as it ought to be is not the world as it is - it is not the real world. We don't have to be schooled with 'oughts' to obey the law of gravity. But we do have to remind each other occasionally, not to create obedient slaves of our children (though we may hide the ought). Likewise, we ought not to raise monsters, but sometimes, it seems, we do. There is something more than rhetoric to this talk; it is simply impossible to do without, even in this thread which is trying to look rationally or scientifically. Even there, there is hidden an assumption that science is 'good'. To be alive is to make judgements of value. Everyone ought to realise that they simply cannot do without oughts. If you disagree, then you ought to try and convince me that I am wrong, and if I am as reasonable as I ought to be, I will be open to your argument.
The observer is the observed. J Krishnamurti "Philosophy, to the Philistine, is an evolutionary process, watched over by some sort of brisk dynamic Providence, and culminating in the supreme insight of modern thought." John Cowper Powys

cortes
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2005
Total Topics: 39
Total Posts: 1390

Posted 05/09/08 - 09:28 AM:	#19
Reformed Nihilist wrote: That is a very extreme take on rhetoric. "Verbal assualt"? I did say that "verbal assault" was the extreme. Reformed Nihilist wrote: Persuasive speech is rhetoric. I'm not sure what is wrong with appealing to emotions or authority. Emotions (our own and those of others) and authority are very valuable considerations in making descisions in life. Often more important than "pure reason". You seem to use the word rhetoric in a prejorative sense, and I'm not sure why. Absolutely not. I have argued against that. In fact, I have argued that it is self-contradictory to so argue. (Not that there is anything wrong with contradicting yourself.) Reformed Nihilist wrote: As I mentioned, ought may be descriptive (entirely) of a cultures or persons mores. As is "We really oughtn't... but lets!". The speaker is clearly trying to convince someone to do something that she also believes they oughtn't do. Wait a minute, you don't need ought to describe cultures and mores. That's now how ought is used. That is how some people try to explain it though. I am rejecting that explanation. Show me a sentence where "ought" is merely descriptive of culture or mores but not intended to cause a change in behavior toward those cultural mores.
Copyright (c) 2008 Hernan Cortes, Sociedad de los Conquistadores. cortes@conquistador.org http://www.conquistador.org

cortes
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2005
Total Topics: 39
Total Posts: 1390

Posted 05/09/08 - 09:34 AM:	#20
unenlightened wrote: Perhaps we ought to bear in mind that the world as it ought to be is not the world as it is - it is not the real world. That is, in fact, a big fat clue. You see much silliness when people try to reduce ought (or morally generally) to a science. unenlightened wrote: We don't have to be schooled with 'oughts' to obey the law of gravity. But we do have to remind each other occasionally, not to create obedient slaves of our children (though we may hide the ought). Likewise, we ought not to raise monsters, but sometimes, it seems, we do. There is something more than rhetoric to this talk; it is simply impossible to do without, even in this thread which is trying to look rationally or scientifically. Even there, there is hidden an assumption that science is 'good'. To be alive is to make judgements of value. Everyone ought to realise that they simply cannot do without oughts. If you disagree, then you ought to try and convince me that I am wrong, and if I am as reasonable as I ought to be, I will be open to your argument. I think you are underestimating rhetoric when you say that "There is something more than rhetoric to this talk". But otherwise I agree that we ought to get used to using ought in particular and rhetoric in general. We are moral animals after all.
Copyright (c) 2008 Hernan Cortes, Sociedad de los Conquistadores. cortes@conquistador.org http://www.conquistador.org

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.