At the beginning of the class, I expressed my distate for Pathos. I feel uncomfortable employing emotions to change people. Maybe it's my my rugged manliness that causes the conflict. As Oscar Wilde said, "A sentimentalist is one who desires to have the luxury of an emotion without paying for it." I will eventually need to overcome the restrictions of my sex and sap up my writing if I want to be truly successful.
But my discomfort raises a question: is it ethical to manipulate people through powerful writing, emotion aside? Just like Jedi Mind Tricks, writing can have a powerful effect on the weak minded; it has the potential to raise mobs. Also, there are scores of people out there who will defend a position that they've read about just because they've read about it. I was one of them. My 8th grade year, after reading Atlas Shrugged, I was an avid Objectionist. However after further research and study, I find many aspects of that philosophy ridiculous. It is unethical only to present one side of an argument?
No. It's not.
And even if it was unethical, there's no way to prevent manipulation. Bias is inherent. It's unethical for you as a reader to only read one side of the argument.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
bias is inherent because there is no point of reference. what is the unbiased point of view? everyone has a different perspective on what middle ground is. and people usually consider it where there views lie. bias is just a word for people who don't agree with you.
ReplyDeleteGreat definition of bias a Troy. I also think that the manipulation can be evidenced in an author's writing through the wonderful world of logical fallacies, especially attacks on the opposing viewpoint.
ReplyDeletePathos isn't about artificially manipulating emotion--it's about conveying emotion, sincerely felt. If a topic means something to me, and I can't help you understand that, then I can't communicate with the same power.
ReplyDelete