Monday, October 6, 2014

What makes a good man?



For several pages Quintilian revisits the idea that a good man will naturally make a better orator than a bad man.  This is a subject which has been addressed by several rhetoricians before Quintilian and one we have brought up in regards to the effect of ethos.  Quintilian even relies on Cato for his definition "a good man skilled in speaking." (413 left column).  I do appreciate Quintilian's argument that a bad man is too busy thinking evil thoughts to better himself in the knowledge and the practice of speaking. (413 right column).  He then goes on to acknowledge the other side of the argument citing both Demosthenes and Cicero as great orators but generally bad men.  However, He then continues to defend these men (414).  This shows that trying to define a "good" man and a "bad" man has its grey areas.  Looking again at Hitler we can easily say that he was a bad man, but we again come across moral grey area.  Hitler most likely didn't view himself as a bad man but rather a patriot trying to improve his country.  We can't forget that in 1938 Hitler was Time person of the year.  I then have to disagree with the argument that good men make better orators.  Bad men rarely see themselves as such and instead find a way to believe that they are good men.  The definition should then be Men who believe they are good, skilled in speaking.  

2 comments:

  1. Cody,
    I wrote about this topic as well and I share the same frustrations you wrote about in your post. On page 417 Quintilian writes, "that a good man, in defending a cause, may sometimes incline to withhold the truth from the judge." I brought this quote up in class the other day, and for someone like Quintilian who was concerned with the teaching of morals/morality this doesn't quite seem to fit. I like the definition you came up with at the end of your post and I think I struggled most with the term "good". I almost wish the term would have been "successful" or something besides "good" making men "successful" orators rather than a "good man skilled in speaking"(p.413). There have been examples, like Hitler as you point out, who were bad men but made successful, persuasive orators. I'm glad you, also, saw the grey areas of what makes a "good" man and "bad" man.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I appreciate your point that "the definition should then be Men who believe they are good, skilled in speaking." Hitler is certainly not the only example of a "bad" man who believed in his cause so fully that he truly believed he was right. History is filled with persuasive orators who were not "good" men. Jim Jones, David Koresh, Vladimir Lenin. It would be lovely to believe that every orator would write the equivalent of "I Have a Dream" but that is just not the case.

    ReplyDelete