In class, Dr. MMC brought up the questions of whether there are relationships between truth and argument, and persuasion and ethics. I believe that there should be some degree of truth to an argument (considering you can’t really present an argument without facts). However, if you look at some arguments, the truth is all in the way it is presented. Someone’s actions can be taken completely out of context and used against him or her in a way that may not be completely true. Additionally, not everybody may see the same truths all the time. People believe what they want to believe and will argue vehemently against their opposition, even if they are not necessarily right. This, to a certain degree, can be considered manipulation – presenting an argument in a way that benefits you- however, if the presenter is giving the subject all of the information they need to make an informed decision, there is really not an argument to be made.
Additionally, the relationship between persuasion and ethics can go both ways. You don’t need to necessarily be ethical to persuade someone of something (for example, Al Capone was persuasive but he did this through coercion, which is not ethical.) As stated above, there can be a certain degree of manipulation involved if you don’t present all the facts or you create a lie of omission. If you are looking at ethical persuasion, however, if you state your viewpoint, listen to the opposition’s viewpoint, and then come to a mutual agreement then that would be an ethical form of persuasion.