"Good" Rhetoric

     I like the difference in these books between Cicero and Aristotle. Aristotle claimed audience emotions shouldn't be manipulated by rhetoric because it was unfair to the people. A passage on page 179, right column, read, "It is not right to pervert the judge by moving him to anger or envy or pity - one might as well warp a carpenter's rule before using it" (from Aristotle). This belief is valiant. Emotions are easy to use - both Aristotle and Cicero are right here. However, if your purpose as a rhetor is to persuade, shouldn't you be able to use any means?
     Aristotle and Cicero seem to simply have different definitions of a "good" rhetor. Aristotle wants his students to be valiant and trustworthy - not manipulative; Cicero wants the purpose (persuasion, etc.) to be reached. It's good in the sense of morals and good in the sense of talent.
     I like Cicero's teachings of pathos / manipulation more than Aristotle's. Use what you can as a writer, a speaker, and a rhetor. Responsibility should be in the hands of the audience: be aware that you're being swayed.
     It's important to note, too, that Cicero didn't preach to manipulate in a bad way - just to persuade effectively. He still believed a performance should be truthful. He didn't necessarily want his students to lie, just to get the point across.

     Maybe everyone was more valiant and true back then.