Greeks believed that if you were an orator you had to be
morally good. I do agree with that, if someone you want to follow or elect (ex.
President) doesn’t have the morals that you believe are right for your wellbeing
why listen or agree with them? I do believe this is a connection to goodness,
truth, and public communication. You do want someone who is speaking a speech
to give the truth and speaking from the goodness of their heart.
With my example of a president, you want to believe
everything they’re giving a speech about. If a president is promising your
country and the people things that can help everyone you want them to deliver.
Speeches are a way for the president to get others involved and their way of
communicating with the public.
In my opinion, the Greeks believed in the speeches of the
orators and it was only right that if an orator was going to speak to them that
their morals were good. If we had that option we would be able to weed out the
ones who weren’t giving speeches that were truth.
Hi Adrienna,
ReplyDeleteI do agree with you, that an orator does not have to be morally good, but I find it funny that most of the posts on this subject (to include mine) revolve around politics, and more specifically the moral choices (or should I say immoral choices) of our so called trusted politicians :-). Does this go to prove that at some point we trust them, or are the voters just filling in the bubble because there is not a better choice on the ballot? If the orators from the past are considered trustworthy and moral, and the ones today are not, what does this say about today’s acceptance of immorality? Just a thought!!