A Rhetorical Analysis of Hsun Tzu's Persuasive Techniques

Introduction

Imagine a scenario where everyone's behavior is the same. Would it be considered good or evil? This question has sparked a lot of debates among scholars. Ancient thinkers had different views on this. Some, like Hsun Tzu, believed human actions are linked to evil. Others, like Mencius, thought humans are naturally good and guided by virtue. These conflicting views create confusion for readers who have to pick a side. The authors' persuasive techniques play a big role in influencing readers' choices. They use ethos, pathos, and logos to back up their points. Given what's happening in society and the persuasive nature of Tzu’s work, it seems fair to argue that humans are naturally evil, and any goodness comes from conscious effort influenced by external controls.

Hsun Tzu's Argument

According to Tzu, humans are born evil, and any righteousness comes from their scruples. His arguments were based on societal perceptions and real-life examples, which still apply today. He used many practical examples to show humans as symbols of evil.

• Love for Profit: Tzu argued that people are born with a love for profit. This desire for personal gain leads to conflicts and suppresses virtues like courtesy and humility.
• Envy and Hate: He also said that people are born with envy and hate, which drive them away from societal virtues and towards evil acts.
• Desires for Physical Appearance: Tzu believed people are born with desires for what they see and hear. He argued that people are attracted to physical appearance rather than inner qualities, which truly represent a person's character.

Despite this evil nature, Tzu argued that societal rules force people to act righteously. His argument is logical and persuasive, using ethos, pathos, and logos effectively.

Ethos in Tzu's Argument

Tzu used ethos to boost the credibility of his work. Ethos refers to techniques that make an author's work more believable (Foss, 2017).

• Tzu is a well-known Confucian philosopher, alongside Confucius and Mencius, which adds to his credibility. He was a pioneer in Chinese philosophy, setting the stage for further development in the field.
• The way Tzu organized his arguments reflects modern society, making his points more relatable to readers. He mentioned that laws and rules are the main reasons for good behavior among humans. This idea is very relatable today, as fear of arrest or social disgrace keeps many from doing wrong. Without such laws, people's true, evil nature would emerge. If humans were naturally good, there wouldn't be a need for laws to prevent crime and maintain order.

Pathos in Tzu's Argument

Tzu also used pathos to connect with readers' emotions and self-interest. Pathos are techniques that appeal to an audience’s feelings (Foss, 2017). Tzu aligned his arguments with common activities that affect people.

• For example, he mentioned that people are more attracted to physical aspects than behavioral traits. This drive for physical satisfaction often comes at the expense of moral standards.
• This phenomenon is common today, especially with the rise of social media. People are often attracted to beauty, alienating those who don't fit societal standards. This can lead to psychological issues and even suicide for those who are abused and alienated. The emotional impact of such actions highlights the evil nature of humans. The emotions of love, pity, and anger that Tzu's arguments evoke make his points more convincing.

Logos in Tzu's Argument

Lastly, Tzu used logos, or logical reasoning, to persuade his audience. Logos involves using logic to convince people (Foss, 2017).

• Tzu compared human behavior to a warped piece of wood or blunt metal. Just like wood must be steamed and forced into shape to become straight, people need rules and laws to become righteous. By default, they are evil.
• This comparison is a logical reflection of society. People rely on external factors like laws and influence from others to behave righteously.

Mencius' Counter-Argument

On the flip side, Mencius argued that humans are naturally good. He believed that people can learn because their nature is good. However, his argument is based on a shaky premise. Mencius didn't fully understand human nature, as he failed to distinguish between conscious activity and basic nature. Nature is an innate attribute given from heaven; it can't be learned or acquired. So, Mencius was describing a man's conscious actions, not his nature.

Conclusion

To sum up, humans are naturally evil and guided by societal principles and guidelines to follow virtues. Tzu supports this view by pointing out traits like the love for profit, envy, and the desire for physical appearance. These traits make humans evil. However, fear of breaking rules forces people to conform to moral standards. Tzu's use of ethos, pathos, and logos makes his argument convincing. So, it's fair to say his work is well-presented and can be embraced by the general public.