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

unenlightened
psychobabble

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 10, 2007
Location: Wales
Total Topics: 19
Total Posts: 1598

Posted 05/09/08 - 10:39 AM:	#21
cortes wrote: I think you are underestimating rhetoric when you say that "There is something more than rhetoric to this talk". Perhaps. I grant you that rhetoric inevitably has ought in it somewhere - you ought to think this or do that. "There ought to be 52 cards in this deck, but there are only 51. The queen of hearts is missing" I'm not convinced that this is a rhetorical 'ought'. It seems to me that the way our minds work a lot of the time is by running 'models' of the world in general and social situations in particular. So I have a model of a deck consisting of 52 cards and this is what a deck 'ought' to be, and in this case ain't. This counterfactual world of ideas (an ideal world?) is constantly being compared to the world as it is, usually unfavourably. I would like ideally to convince you that it is built into the way we think and perceive and not just the way we talk. This post ought to do it.
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

keda
Ijon Tichy

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 25, 2005
Location: Finland
Total Topics: 26
Total Posts: 2726

Posted 05/09/08 - 10:46 AM:	#22
cortes wrote: 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. I guess we are working with different terminology again. Persuasion is a form of assent based on subjective grounds, that one takes to be objective. When one persuades someone, one is using those subjective grounds of the other person like a a seductress uses a weakness in her victim she knows he is prone to fall for, to construct apparently objectively valid assent. Rhetoric in general does not need to be of this nature. When a mother says "you ought to eat the vegetables" she could be speaking in terms of a particular context, when she means "you ought to stay healthy, and eating the vegetables best promotes this end" instantiating a general rule. In teaching her child the morality of eating vegetables, she cannot persuade, as the end of her child acting merely to please her in order to gain her approval as it nullifies the moral value of of the act. She cannot influence the moral worth of her child, merely provide the instruments her child needs to excercise it. A child matures enough to understand the basics of moral worth when she recognizes the distinct type of approvals her parents express, that she through trial and error soon will discover the general rule that govern them, that will allow her to choose whether to adopt it or not. A sycophantic child will on the other hand choose to make such a principle subordinate the principle of self interest, to win approval of her parents.
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

cortes
Tenured Poster

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

Posted 05/09/08 - 11:24 AM:	#23
unenlightened wrote: [quote=cortes]"There ought to be 52 cards in this deck, but there are only 51. The queen of hearts is missing" I'm not convinced that this is a rhetorical 'ought'. It seems to me that the way our minds work a lot of the time is by running 'models' of the world in general and social situations in particular. So I have a model of a deck consisting of 52 cards and this is what a deck 'ought' to be, and in this case ain't. This counterfactual world of ideas (an ideal world?) is constantly being compared to the world as it is, usually unfavourably. I would like ideally to convince you that it is built into the way we think and perceive and not just the way we talk. There is quite obviously a very close relationship betwen, on the one hand, desire and will and, on the other hand, rhetorical communication. We have mental models of what we desire or how the world "ought" to be. We employ rhetoric (e.g. ought) to persuade others (and sometimes even to persuade ourselves) toward our model or the object our desires.
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 - 11:37 AM:	#24
keda wrote: I guess we are working with different terminology again. Persuasion is a form of assent based on subjective grounds, that one takes to be objective. When one persuades someone, one is using those subjective grounds of the other person like a a seductress uses a weakness in her victim she knows he is prone to fall for, to construct apparently objectively valid assent. Rhetoric in general does not need to be of this nature. It is interesting that your language is so value-laden. You seem to be implying that people ought not persuade. You are choosing words that have the effect of denigrating the practice. I'm not sure that it is meaningful to distinguish rhetoric from persuasion. Philosophers from Plato on have long recognized that persuasion is the purpose of rhetoric. keda wrote: When a mother says "you ought to eat the vegetables" she could be speaking in terms of a particular context, when she means "you ought to stay healthy, and eating the vegetables best promotes this end" instantiating a general rule. But that's just not accurate. Show me a mother who would accept her child's choice to be unhealthy? You are mistaking a pretended reason for an actual reason. keda wrote: In teaching her child the morality of eating vegetables, she cannot persuade, as the end of her child acting merely to please her in order to gain her approval as it nullifies the moral value of of the act. Perhaps this is a bad example, then, but most typically the parent doesn't care what reason succeeds (hence doesn't care if the reason is logical) so long as the vegetables are eaten. In most cases, children learn to like vegetables or at least learn to like enough of them. At some point, then, the child acquires a taste and the mother can relinquish that duty. A similar example is running in the street. keda wrote: She cannot influence the moral worth of her child, merely provide the instruments her child needs to excercise it. A child matures enough to understand the basics of moral worth when she recognizes the distinct type of approvals her parents express, that she through trial and error soon will discover the general rule that govern them, that will allow her to choose whether to adopt it or not. A sycophantic child will on the other hand choose to make such a principle subordinate the principle of self interest, to win approval of her parents. You should probably work with a different example here. How about a mother who is teaching honesty? In that case there is no immediate danger and so there is less urgency to imparting the lesson. Nevertheless, a mother who says to her child, "you ought to be honest with me" is not leaving the matter to the child to decide.
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: 26
Total Posts: 2726

Posted 05/10/08 - 02:11 AM:	#25
cortes wrote: It is interesting that your language is so value-laden. You seem to be implying that people ought not persuade. You are choosing words that have the effect of denigrating the practice. I'm not sure that it is meaningful to distinguish rhetoric from persuasion. Philosophers from Plato on have long recognized that persuasion is the purpose of rhetoric. I suppose the confusion is due to the dual meaning of rhetoric. Plato himself defined it as such in Gorgias and condemnedd it but later gave another definition in Phaedrus, that of "the art of speaking or writing well" which is not in itself "shameful", but can be used for "shameful" practices. I don't condemn the latter type of rhetoric. But that's just not accurate. Show me a mother who would accept her child's choice to be unhealthy? You are mistaking a pretended reason for an actual reason. I'm not sure how you come to the conclusion that I'd imply a mother would accept her child's choice to be unhealthy. It is certainly not something I meant. Perhaps this is a bad example, then, but most typically the parent doesn't care what reason succeeds (hence doesn't care if the reason is logical) so long as the vegetables are eaten. In most cases, children learn to like vegetables or at least learn to like enough of them. At some point, then, the child acquires a taste and the mother can relinquish that duty. A similar example is running in the street. Note that I'm not trying to describe how parents usually are, but how they should be. You should probably work with a different example here. How about a mother who is teaching honesty? In that case there is no immediate danger and so there is less urgency to imparting the lesson. Nevertheless, a mother who says to her child, "you ought to be honest with me" is not leaving the matter to the child to decide. The principle is the same regarding morality, whether it is an imperfect or perfect duty, acting merely in accord with duty e.g. being honest doesn't suffice when it is done only to avoid unpleasant circumstances that would follow were you to get caught. It would mean that you would in fact lie if it weren't for such circumstances, like a murder would kill if he were on free foot and had the weapon necessary and the skill to aim it, but doesn't because the circumstances are not right.
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

Benkei
Self-hating Dutchman

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Feb 06, 2004
Location: Netherlands
Total Topics: 52
Total Posts: 2027

Posted 05/10/08 - 05:11 AM:	#26
If gravity exists, everything ought/should/must (to) fall to the ground.
- How are you doing? - I'm doing good. - No, Superman is doing Good, you're doing well. You need to brush up on your grammar.

cortes
Tenured Poster

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

Posted 05/10/08 - 06:10 AM:	#27
keda wrote: I suppose the confusion is due to the dual meaning of rhetoric. Plato himself defined it as such in Gorgias and condemnedd it but later gave another definition in Phaedrus, that of "the art of speaking or writing well" which is not in itself "shameful", but can be used for "shameful" practices. I don't condemn the latter type of rhetoric....Note that I'm not trying to describe how parents usually are, but how they should be. Plato was most definitely anti-rhetoric but his qualms were not with persuasion but with the tendency of rhetoriticians to divorce rhetoric from "the good". He was all for persuading people of the truth. (Think about an attorney arguing for the defense of a client he knows to be guilty.) This is, indeed, a fault line running through much of the history of philosophy. But the position that persuasion is "shameful" is indefensible. It is impossible to argue for the abolition of persuasion without employing persuasion. You yourself seek to persuade parents of how they should treat their children. What is interesting is that rhetoric is not (inherently) disingenuous. If I argue that you should believe X by an appeal to authority or an appeal to emotion, I have not lied to you. keda wrote: The principle is the same regarding morality, whether it is an imperfect or perfect duty, acting merely in accord with duty e.g. being honest doesn't suffice when it is done only to avoid unpleasant circumstances that would follow were you to get caught. It would mean that you would in fact lie if it weren't for such circumstances, like a murder would kill if he were on free foot and had the weapon necessary and the skill to aim it, but doesn't because the circumstances are not right. Ultimately the child grows into a man and makes his own decisions. Much of what goes on in child rearing is teaching good habits and introducing experiences that would not be voluntarily tried. The employment of ought by a parent is designed to affect the child, not merely to pass knowledge.
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 05/10/08 - 06:18 AM:	#28
Benkei wrote: If gravity exists, everything ought/should/must (to) fall to the ground. The question here is what is meant by "ought" as opposed to "will". I suspect this is more of a case of anthropomorphism than a different meaning of ought. We do see "ought" used in this way. Also, it seems to be serving as a hedge as in "if taxes are reduced we ought to see an end to the recession." There is the implication of a model of reality which might be violated.
Copyright (c) 2008 Hernan Cortes, Sociedad de los Conquistadores. cortes@conquistador.org http://www.conquistador.org

Benkei
Self-hating Dutchman

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Feb 06, 2004
Location: Netherlands
Total Topics: 52
Total Posts: 2027

Posted 05/10/08 - 07:47 AM:	#29
The problems arising from the use of "ought" are due to the subject in relation to which the verb is used, not intrinsically a problem of the verb itself.
- How are you doing? - I'm doing good. - No, Superman is doing Good, you're doing well. You need to brush up on your grammar.

cortes
Tenured Poster

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

Posted 05/10/08 - 07:58 AM:	#30
Benkei wrote: The problems arising from the use of "ought" are due to the subject in relation to which the verb is used, not intrinsically a problem of the verb itself. What "problems" are those?
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.