Rhetoric and the Intellectual Property Debate

In the first chapter of his lessons on Rhetoric, Aristotle explains the importance of emotional appeals within any argument. He says that, while a more sophisticated audience may accept appeals to logic alone, the masses require an emotional appeal before they will accept an argument. He says, "For argument based on knowledge implies instruction, and there are people whom one cannot instruct" (Rhetoric 5). When it comes to public debates, such as the intellectual property debate, it is possible to be emotionally supportive of one side and totally ignorant of the actual facts concerning the issue. For instance, I am currently a supporter of some intellectual property rights because, as an aspiring author, I have a personal interest in copyright laws that protect my work and will potentially allow me to earn a living. However, if I find through a closer examination of the debate that my personal interest is false, and that in fact copyright laws will inhibit my potential to earn a living as an author, it will more than likely cause me to change my position. This, in and of itself, will be an interesting political psychology question concerning why people change their minds about issues, and I plan to discuss that as I dissect the various arguments. To answer the psychological questions, I will draw from Westen's book The Political Brain. Using both Aristotle and Westen, I will be examining the rhetorical strategies of those who are both for and against intellectual property laws, including their appeals to logic and emotion.