I posted a previous article on this subject:
Ethos, Pathos, and Logos
I'm going to change the order here because I think it presents these terms in a correct form to better understand how construction of good arguments can hold water.
More on Logos:
Logos means an utterance or a 'word'. All arguments are constructed of the words themselves and how they fit together. It focus' on the abstract and rational part of reasoning. Logos doesn't rely on emotions, moral values, and feelings to construct an argument. It is based on the If/Then statements in the syllogistic blue print.
Examples: This product is good. Therefore you should buy it. This person is good as a candidate for office. Therefore you should vote for him.
More on Ethos:
Appealing to the character of the speaker or writer. It also includes general ethical and moral systems. Ethos includes references to principles in behavior that cannot be proven by syllogisms alone. It relies on a shared or assumed moral or ethical system. But, logic needs to be in place because a listener or reader needs to follow a cause and the effect it creates. The human component has to be included or else you run the risk of getting anyone to care about the subject being deliberated. This is where Pathos comes into play...
More on Pathos:
This is the last note in this triad of reasoning. Pathos is always included in an argument. It can be a major or minor component in its delivery. Even when you're just looking for the facts alone there is at least enough pathos inside it to ask the listener to pay attention because it is important.
Pathos is like adding yeast to the sterile flour of logic. It helps it to grow and rise by putting a human face on difficult issues of discussion. Including bits of gossip in your dialog is useful because people are always interested in what others are doing and are more likely to pay attention to the ethics involved.
Points to consider:
All arguments include logos, ethos, and pathos. The hard part is adding them in the right proportions. The trick is to choose an effective balance. Lawyers like to say "when the facts support your case, argue facts. When the law supports it, then argue law. And when neither the facts nor the law work, pound on the table to support your point with pathos.
When analyzing rhetoric, people should be wary of pathos because it often has the effect of short circuiting reason. But, ignoring it completely is very dangerous because in larger bureaucratic groups and impersonal corporate structures it's easy to forget about individual human rights and suffering...
Click for more on this subject matter..
