The articles in this series were delivered as speeches at the end of the Spring 2025 semester for Rosary College’s Speech and Rhetoric course. Student’s were prompted to take a stance on Socrates’ vision of rhetoric as a morally formative force.

Aristotle once said, “Let rhetoric… be a power of seeing what is capable of being persuasive on each subject” (Rhetoric, bk. 1:1355b.26-27). If Aristotle’s definition is accurate, then rhetoric is that by which a speaker knows how to speak persuasively and that with which he is able to speak persuasively. It is a means of persuasion, a tool that can be used for good or bad. It seems to be very technical and methodical. One might be inclined to think it has nothing to do with moral formation or corruption, but it does. While rhetoric does not fully dictate the content of a speech, it does dictate the words and expression, which affect whether we receive the information and how we receive the information. Today, I plan on showing you that rhetoric is a force for moral formation, since it effectively communicates the truth and thoroughly disposes us to receive the truth, and through this forms our morals according to that truth.

Before we begin, we must make it very clear that rhetoric is a tool. Any tool has the potential to become a force for evil. A book can be a force for moral corruption, a fire can destroy houses, medicine can be fatal, but when looking at any of these as a whole, they are not bad things; they are very useful and good when we use them right. In a similar way to these, rhetoric can be a very dangerous thing. It can mislead and corrupt our morals, but this is not the proper use of it. The proper use of rhetoric is guidance and instruction, not control and manipulation. Rhetoric is a means to an end, a method of teaching the truth. We must see rhetoric not as a corrupting force, but as one that forms us in good morals. For we take things at their best, not their worst.

But how can this “tool” help form good morals in an audience? you might ask. The answer is that rhetoric aids the communication of truth. It does this firstly by enhancing clarity. In order for something to teach good morals, it must clearly communicate the truth and those good morals. It does not matter how correct a speaker is if he cannot clearly communicate the truth that he has. In Plato’s Gorgias, Socrates asks many questions of his interlocutors in an attempt to make clear what is true. Socrates often points out inconsistencies in their arguments. One of these is when Gorgias first says that rhetoric is a tool that can be used to commit injustice, but then later admits that “the rhetorician will never want to do injustice” (Plato, 456C-457C; 460C). Gorgias states one thing, but then later admits something contradictory. Gorgias himself, it is clear, does not understand his own argument fully; thus he speaks in contradictions, which is the opposite of clarity. But, if he is speaking unclearly, he will not be able to convince others of his view.

Those arguing for the truth must strive to communicate clearly. It is crucial that the truth be told with clarity. Suppose I were to tell you that “God is the person who makes things so that they can do the things that are the stuff they are supposed to do.” Now, this may be true, but it is not clear. Are you likely to hear that and go, “Oh… Now I understand what God does”? If the truth is not communicated with clarity, how can the speaker expect the audience to understand? And if one does not understand the truth, how can he form his morals based on that truth? This is where rhetoric comes in handy. The study of rhetoric teaches the speaker how to use words clearly and effectively. It reframes language in the mind of the speaker in such a way that it guides him on the quest to find the right words to communicate clearly what he wants to say. 

Next, rhetoric not only makes the truth clear, it also makes it easier to believe. If a speaker speaks clearly, but not persuasively, we will be less inclined to listen and believe what he is saying than if he had strong arguments and logic. If someone speaks the truth, but does not develop his arguments well, he will likely not succeed in convincing his audience of the truth. The usefulness of solid arguments is evidenced by the fact that even arguments for something bad or false can win out over truth, if argued well.

There is a great example of this in Augustine’s Against the Academicians. Licentius, the young man who starts as the defender of the Academicians makes his points very well. Though the view of the Academicians is the very thing Augustine is refuting in the work, it is well-argued by Licentius. “You tried to undermine [the definition of ‘wisdom’] with so much cunning that maybe not even your helper Albicerius would himself have been wise to your tricks” (1.9.24:30-31). Licentius’ arguments are very convincing. We see here that that which is spoken convincingly and skillfully, not just clearly, and is backed up by logical arguments is more effective in swaying the audience to a certain point of view or action than a point that, even if completely true and clearly stated, is not defended effectively. Here, again, rhetoric is useful. Rhetoric, as the study of how to effectively use and arrange words, provides the speaker with the skill and knowledge to develop convincing arguments and bring the audience to logical conclusions. Since rhetoric aids in the communication of the truth, it also then helps form good morals in the audience through that communication of the truth.

Finally, rhetoric is what helps make the truth and good morals acceptable and appealing. In book 1 of Rhetoric, Aristotle spends a lot of time summing up the most common opinions of ordinary people on many different questions. The reason for this is evident in the quotation I used at the very beginning: “Let rhetoric… be a power of seeing what is capable of being persuasive on each subject” (bk.1:1355b.26-27). Rhetoric is the power of seeing what is persuasive on each subject. Opinions, biases, and predispositions have a tremendous effect on what is persuasive for each subject.

Suppose I was trying to persuade you that a Hail Mary pass was the best kind of play in football. If I said that it was the best play because a team, who happens to be the rival of your favorite team, favors it, my argument would likely fail miserably at convincing you. This concept applies to every topic with which a speaker deals. The speaker has to use methods that are most likely to make the truth acceptable, he has to speak in a way that opens the listener’s mind to his argument.

Aristotle understood this well. While a speaker should always speak the truth and argue honestly, not every argument and method will work for every audience. It is not only enough to speak clearly and have good arguments, you must also appeal to the audience. It is more than just logic and clarity, it is also about presentation, building rapport, and winning over the audience. Now, this can sound a little manipulative, but think about it: we all get a little biased sometimes, maybe a lot of times, and some of us are stubborn, myself included; so if a speaker does not take our stubbornness and biases into account and just makes logical arguments without attempting to make the truth and the moral way more appealing, then he is going to have more trouble persuading us. So, instead of thinking of it as manipulation, think of it as disposing the audience to receive the truth. If good morals sound appealing, we will likely put more effort into adopting those morals ourselves. 

Isocrates, in his work Antidosis, in answer to an accusation, says, “I thought I had made everyone aware that I chose both to speak and to write not about private disputes but about public matters of such great importance that no one else would attempt them” (206). He then speaks of his accusers, saying that some of them were “deceived about my affairs” and others “were jealous” (Isocrates, 206). By appealing to the importance of his subject matter and wide-spread awareness of his focus on said matter, as well as by classifying the opposition as either deceived or jealous, Isocrates is trying to condition his audience to be open to hearing his side. He understands that if the audience does not want to listen, is not disposed to listen, the arguments he makes will likely be in vain. This is why he is careful what he says and how he says it. As a very skilled rhetorician, he knows well how to use rhetoric to do this. The eloquence of rhetoric aids in appealing to the audience and conditioning them, which opens them to hearing the truth. When rhetoric has opened the minds of the audience to hear the truth, the truth can then teach the audience good morals.

In conclusion, rhetoric is, indeed, a force for moral formation. By aiding in the clarity, believability, and appeal of the truth, it allows speech to encourage and teach good morals. Yes, rhetoric can be used as a force for moral corruption; yes, it can be used to manipulate, but we do not take things at their worst, we take them at their best. At its best, rhetoric is a force for moral formation.