What is Ethical Ego? For many philosophers, what is ethical ego is the driving principle behind what is right and wrong in society. The concept of what is ethical often differs from one culture to another. But for the most part, ethics applies universally and requires that we do good acts in order to benefit ourselves and others. And it requires that we act in ways that are consistent with what is right and proper.
Ego is a Greek term meaning “charismatic” which is used to describe the motivating force, the will to pursue an idea or purpose, that makes us human. It involves a set of moral principles and the idea that these principles are necessary for humans to flourish as a species. The Greeks also used the term to describe the power of music to affect behavior, attitudes, and morals. And it was through the works of Plato and Aristotle, that the idea that what is ethos could be traced back to the rational method of thought, that all knowledge can be justified, and that reason is the means by which we arrive at knowledge.
An appeal is a technique that allows a speaker to evoke what is ethos through appeal and persuasion. An appeal is a way of asking a question and then following up with an explanation about why the question is important and how it can help people. It has a goal of appealing to those who will listen to the explanation. However, what is the ethos when it comes to using appeals in persuasive speech?
What is the ethos when it comes to what is right and proper in terms of social etiquette? What is the ethos when it comes to respecting the views of the listeners and respecting the opinions and values of others? Can you show others how they would benefit from adopting your view? Can you persuade your audience, using what is called “the pathos factor”?
In terms of what is the ethos and what is correct, the answer depends on how you interpret Greek philosophy itself. The idea that what is right in and of itself is circular. A circle can only be turned around and viewed from another perspective – the perspective that goes round and around the idea that what is right is circular again. Hence, what is the ethos can be interpreted as the values and principles that are essential to the functioning of a free and open society. For that reason, what is the ethos cannot be reduced to a single abstract value.
Where the pathos factor enters the picture, however, is when the narrator provides an explanation for what is happening or what is expected to happen. When that occurs, what is the ethos is revealed to be more than just what is right or proper; what is ethos is revealed as the deeper values and commitments that the audience needs to have about themselves and their community. Hence, what is the ethos becomes not just a series of conventions or ritualistic behaviors; what is ethos becomes the very fabric of what is expected to happen, as well as what is actually happening. This is what is called the ethos paradox.
The paradox also becomes obvious when one considers that what is needed is not just a set of rules or a set of traditions but rather a re-wiring of human beings so that they can respond to and understand their environment in new ways. How this can happen within an academic discipline whose very nature defies such re wiring is the exact opposite of what is often imagined. And that is why such academics as Leo Tolstoy and Barry Lopez have made what is called the ‘logical argument’ that ethics can only be understood through logos (the good), and that ethical theories and arguments must always rest upon logos.
Where an audience fails to understand what is ethos is when what is ethos is taken for granted by the speaker, the writer or the performer. The absence of an obvious logo for what is ethos therefore renders an audience incapable of understanding what is ethos, much less making any attempt to engage with it in some meaningful way. This makes ethos as dead can be, for without an evidential symbol, there is no reason for the audience to react to what is being said. It is therefore the height of irresponsibility to ignore what is ethos, much less the irresponsible failure to apply what is gleaned from what is ethos.