Editing Persuasion (section)

=== Ethics of persuasion ===
{{Rhetoric}}
Many philosophers have commented on the morality of persuasion. [[Socrates]] argued that rhetoric was based on appearances rather than the essence of a matter.<ref>{{Cite book|last=Soules|first=Marshall|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=owfdCQAAQBAJ|title=Media, Persuasion and Propaganda|date=2015-02-13|publisher=Edinburgh University Press|isbn=978-0-7486-9643-7|language=en}}</ref>{{Rp|22}} [[Thomas Hobbes]] was critical of use rhetoric to create controversy, particularly the use of metaphor.<ref name=":0">{{Cite book|last1=Garsten|first1=Bryan|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=WEFtff4fm2QC|title=Saving Persuasion|last2=Garsten|first2=Assistant Professor of Political Science Bryan|date=2006|publisher=Harvard University Press|isbn=978-0-674-02168-6|language=en}}</ref>{{Rp|28}} [[Immanuel Kant]] was critical of rhetoric, arguing that it could cause people to reach conclusions that are at odds with those that they would have reached if they had applied their full judgment. He draws parallels between the function of rhetoric and the deterministic function of the mind like a machine.<ref name=":0" />{{Rp|88}}

[[Aristotle]] was critical of persuasion, though argued that judges would often allow themselves to be persuaded by choosing to apply emotions rather than reason.<ref name=":0" />{{Rp|122}} However, he argued that persuasion could be used to induce an individual to apply reason and judgment.<ref name=":0" />{{Rp|136}}

Writers such as William Keith and Christian O. Lundberg argue that uses of force and threats in trying to influence others does not lead to persuasion, but rather talking to people does, going further to add "While Rhetoric certainly has its dark side that deals in tricks and perceptions... the systematic study of rhetoric generally ignores these techniques, in part because they are ''not'' very systematic or reliable."<ref name=":3">{{Cite book |last=Lundberg |first=Christian O. |date=2017 |url=http://worldcat.org/oclc/1016051800 |title=The Essential Guide to Rhetoric |publisher=Bedford/St. Martin's |isbn=978-1-319-09419-5 |oclc=1016051800}}</ref> There is also in legal disputes, the matter of the [[Burden of proof (law)|burden of proof]] when bringing up an argument, where it often falls on the hands of the one presenting a case to prove its validity to another person and where presumptions may be made where of the burden of proof has not been met, an argument may be dropped such as in a more famous example of "[[Presumption of innocence|Innocent until proven guilty]]", although this line of presumption or burden of proof may not always be followed. While Keith and Lundberg do go into detail about the different intricacies of persuasion, they do explain that lapses in logic and or reasoning could lead to persuasive arguments with faults. These faults can come as [[enthymeme]]s, where more likely than not only certain audiences with specific pieces of knowledge may understand the reasoning being presented with missing logic, or the more egregious example of [[Fallacy|fallacies]] where conclusions may be drawn (almost always incorrectly) through invalid argument.<ref name=":3" /> In contrast to the reasoning behind enthymemes, the use of examples can help prove a person's rhetorical claims through [[inductive reasoning]], which assumes that "if something is true in specific cases, it is true in general".<ref name=":4" />

Examples can be split into two categories real and hypothetical. Real examples come from personal experience or academic/scientific research which can support the argument you're making. Hypothetical examples are made-up. When arguing something, speakers can put forward a hypothetical situation that illustrates the point they are making to connect better with the audience. These examples must be plausible to properly illustrate a persuasive argument.<ref name=":4" />