the responsibility of the orator

[miriam_e]

In school we are taught that debating is all about technique; that it begins and ends with the win. I think this may be the root of many of the major problems in western politics.

We are never taught in school that all those who have the innate or learned skill of convincing others should carry a great weight of responsibility. To use that skill in the service of lies of expedience is akin to reckless driving. When people die it is your fault.

Our current crop of lying politicians are probably no worse than any other. They lie with similar skill and work towards the same shallow ends: get elected, get power, make money, impose your religion. (I count market-driven economics as a religion.) The big problem is that as the planet gets more finely balanced on a knife edge, and as humanity becomes more and more powerful, the responsibilities ignored by politicians become more and more crucial.

Of course the orators are not only politicians. They are religious leaders, talkback radio hosts, newspaper opinion-piece writers, business leaders, school teachers.

If you can affect other people's minds then you have the responsibility that goes along with that. One person hurting one person should be held responsible for what they did. A person who causes thousands to be hurt should incur a similarly appropriate penalty. (And I'm not talking about death -- no person ever has the right to take another's life.)

Yes, this would discourage people becoming leaders and having any great influence over others. That is part of the idea. We have reached a time and place in history where we have numerous examples of greatness that can be achieved without leaders. They have become a liability.

Comments

[jsonstein.livejournal.com]

>In school we are taught that debating is all about technique;
>that it begins and ends with the win.
>I think this may be the root of many of the major problems
>in western politics.

%!$-ing Sophists.

The essential claim of sophistry is that the actual logical validity of an argument is irrelevant; it is only the ruling of the audience which ultimately determine whether a conclusion is considered "true" or not. By appealing to the prejudices and emotions of the judges, one can garner favorable treatment for one's side of the argument and cause a factually false position to be ruled true.

The philosophical Sophist goes one step beyond that and points out that since it was traditionally accepted that the position ruled valid by the judges was literally true, any position ruled true by the judges must be considered literally true, even if it was arrived at by naked pandering to the judges' prejudices — or even by bribery.

from a Wikipedia article

jeffs

[miriam-e.livejournal.com]

Ugh! That is awful. I had no idea that it could be that bad. I wonder if anybody truly believes that position. I know most politicians and other leaders believe in expedience -- the ends justifying the means -- as a way to get what they want. I wonder if some truly believe that being able to sway people makes you correct.

I guess I shouldn't have to ask the question. Some believe all the fairytales surrounding the god fables. Such delusory behavior means people can believe anything.