Nichols 1

Susan Nichols

Dr. Erin Dietel-McLaughlin

FYC 13100: First-Year Composition

29 September 2010

Ethos, Logos, Pathos: Revealer of Technology

The automobile, the telephone, the calculator, the computer, the Internet—technology.

Most of society depends on technology, for better and for worse. Today, technology is accessible

to everyone. No matter who one is or where one lives, he or she can use technology to his or her

liking. Anyone can claim creativity on the web. Is this good or bad? Andrew Keen and Lawrence

Lessig have two opposing viewpoints in this debate. Keen argues against the increasing

technology, while Lessig argues in favor of it. However, both authors state their argument in a

way that effectively demonstrates classical rhetorical principles of ethos, logos, and pathos.

Therefore, both articles should be included in They Say/I Say as examples of this application.

In “Web 2.0,” published in The Weekly Standard, Andrew Keen argues the negative side

of this argument. The author explains that Silicon Valley’s Web 2.0 is the second generation of

the Internet that allows all of society to be creative and author his or her own work. Keen

believes this is troubling though. Comparing this new technology to Marxism ideals and

exclaiming that Socrates would be appalled at the common man’s status on the web, the author

shares his view that humanity is only being worsened. Through all this, Keen describes that the

elite and talented are no longer being recognized. An even playing field is created and society is

stuck in its own world just creating sub-par media, according to the author. This is problematic

and eventually people might lose sight of anything learned or experienced in the past. Keen

argues that technology, specifically Web 2.0, is harming humanity resulting in a loss of talent.
 Nichols 2

Contrastingly, Lawrence Lessig, the author of “In Defense of Piracy,” an article in The

Wall Street Journal, states that advancement in technology has enabled everyone to express

creativity and share work, ultimately believing that technology is a positive. He does, however,

urge society to update copyright laws explaining that they have not caught up to the current uses

of technology. Lessig voices that sharing ideas and creativity is healthy especially for teens and

that copyright laws should not focus on destroying this positive behavior. The author suggests

five changes that if enacted in the copyright law, both the music industry and teens’ sense of

creativity could improve. Overall, Generation-X should not be discouraged from sharing and

creating on the web. The laws should not target these people, as they are not harming anyone.

Lessig states that the laws should just be made easier to understand and work with society to

ensure that the artists are paid without hurting anyone else.

Both Keen and Lessig employ the technique of ethos to persuade their respective

audiences. Ethos corresponds to possessing character, ethics, personality, respect, and a strong

and trustworthy reputation. Generally, it is important for authors to establish ethos because it

strengthens their argument, making it more believable and realistic. First of all, The Weekly

Standard includes a short note about the author to add to his authenticity so that Keen appears

credible to his readers. The magazine makes known that, “Andrew Keen is a veteran Silicon

Valley entrepreneur and digital media critic” (Keen). Granted this is at the end of the article, but

it still reinforces the point that what was just read is truthful. It is also mentioned in just the

fourth paragraph though, when Keen identifies himself as a, “Silicon Valley veteran.” In

addition, from the start, Keen makes a good impression. He characterizes himself as part of

society. He puts himself on the same level as his readers using the words, “We moderns” (Keen).

The fact that the author too admits that he has been swept up in this whirlwind of technology
 Nichols 3

shows that he respects his readers. Keen shows that he is not better than them; he too is human

and recognizes that Web 2.0, though wrong in his opinion, may be hard to steer clear of.

Furthermore, the author shares that he has ethics, pointing to his use of the rhetorical principle of

ethos. While describing a commonly used support for Web 2.0, Moore’s Law, Keen explains

that, “there is an unspoken ethical dimension to Moore’s law. It presumes that each advance in

technology is accompanied by an equivalent improvement in the condition of man.” Clearly,

Keen is sharing his concern for mankind with his readers, demonstrating that he possesses

appropriate ethics, making his viewpoint more persuasive and easier to justify in readers’ minds.

Lawrence Lessig similarly uses the technique of ethos to convince readers that this new

technology is important in today and assists people in being more creative and sharing their

creativity. The Wall Street Journal also gives a brief biography on the author to let readers know

that a trustworthy and knowledgeable man wrote the article. He is “a professor of law at Stanford

Law School, and co-founder of Creative Commons” (Lessig). This description shows the author

is intelligent and has a good reputation. Throughout the article, Lessig also applies ethos when he

notes, for example, that he sat on the board of Electron Frontier Foundation, proving that he has

experience in this field. Also, he, like Keen, demonstrates that he has ethics and cares about

humanity. Lessig announces, “We could reject the notion that Internet culture must oppose

profit, or that profit must destroy Internet culture.” This shows that the author has character,

strong ethics, and a genuine concern for humanity. Lessig offers legitimate suggestions to

improving the technology and copyright laws problems. Through this, his application of ethos

becomes obvious and his readers are therefore more easily persuaded. Overall, in building

credibility with their audiences through ethos, both authors create more persuasive reasoning.

Some do disagree arguing that the authors’ personalities do not show through enough, stating
 Nichols 4

that the ethos is not very strong. This is simply not the case. Their respective arguments allow

readers to get to know them as arguers as well as prove that they are ethical, a facet of

personality that indeed leads to persuasion.

Furthermore, both authors utilize the classical rhetorical principle of logos, making use of

logic in order to strengthen their argument. In “Web 2.0,” Keen uses reason to compare Web 2.0

to, “Marx’s seductive promise about individual self-realization in his German Ideology” which

explains, “each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes.” Not only is the author

quoting an expert, Marx, but he also uses pure logic and reasoning to show that the ideas behind

Web 2.0 have been tested out before, when Communism was in effect, and are currently looked

at as a failure in the American culture today. Because Keen makes a reasonable analogy, readers

find him more persuasive because his argument actually makes sense. Next, “Web 2.0”’s author

describes the detrimental effects of this new digital media technology. Keen provides facts to

show that “Traditional ‘elitist’ media is being destroyed by digital technologies’” as is the case

with TiVo and commercials (Keen). This concrete evidence that readers have seen in their own

lives portray Keen as intelligent and full of facts, which only contributes to his application of

logos and as a result, his argument.

While Keen uses logos to prove that this advancement in technology is negative, the

author of “In Defense of Piracy” uses logos to argue the opposite. Lessig brings up that, “During

the Republican primary, for example, Fox News ordered John McCain’s campaign to stop using

a clip of Sen. McCain at a Fox News-moderated debate in an ad.” This fact demonstrates that

Lessig is logical and has specific evidence as to how the copyright laws are out of control and

out of date. Also, to conclude his article, the author proposes five detailed changes that would

improve the current technology system, allowing everyone to express their creativity and at the
 Nichols 5

same time pay artists fairly (Lessig). Instead of just listing problems, the author uses logic to

actually provide solutions. Clearly these changes Lessig offers are well thought out and make it

easier for readers to agree with him meaning that he has correctly applied the technique of logos.

Though it is apparent that both authors correctly made use of this rhetoric device, some could

argue against this because there are no statistics. However, both authors provide sufficient

evidence through other media such as expert quotes and stories, proving that the articles do in

fact provide worthy examples of logos.

Lastly, Keen and Lessig make use of pathos, an appeal to emotion, to win over readers.

Keen explains that, “The ideological outcome [of Web 2.0] may be trouble for all of us.” The

author uses a scare tactic to get a rise out of readers’ emotions. At the same time though, it is

almost as if he is holding back emotion, another pathos tactic in which restraint is used as a

catalyst for emotion. Keen just hints on the fact that Web 2.0 could destroy society, but he does

not go into further detail. Instead, the author lets the reader experience or worry about

experiencing it for himself or herself. This evokes further emotion out of readers and fears rise

more. Additionally, in “Web 2.0” the author plays on people’s feelings when he describes that

this technology just provokes narcissism in users (Keen). Explaining that people will lose a

diversity of viewpoints and will become obsessed with their selves and their own thoughts, Keen

suggests that he is sympathizing with them as well as feeling bad for them. Readers will not like

the fact that something, in this case Web 2.0, will make them more narcissistic, a negative trait.

There will be uproar of fear and anger, uproar of emotion, and readers will look at Web 2.0

negatively partly due to Keen’s well-executed application of pathos.

Lessig also employs the technique of pathos to his article “In Defense of Piracy” to

persuade readers that technology stimulates creativity and is a positive in society today. Opening
 Nichols 6

with a story about an innocent mother who uploads a video to YouTube of her toddler son

dancing to Prince’s “Let’s Go Crazy” and is then informed that the video was taken down

because the use was unauthorized, the author hits on readers’ emotions (Lessig). They

sympathize with the mother and right away believe that copyright laws are ridiculous and that

technology and digital media today is only used for the betterment of society. The audience too

is outraged and can identify with the mother’s experience. In addition, Lessig plays with the idea

of holding back emotion like Keen. He lets the story pull out the feelings in readers rather than

telling them how to feel. This helps to persuade readers because readers trust themselves and if

they arrive at certain emotions and conclusions by themselves, without the author telling them to,

they will believe and agree with their feelings and in the end the author too. The YouTube story

demonstrates successful use of pathos. The author also stirs up emotion when he claims that this

new technology truly can improve society and cause economic growth. Lessig claims that, “it

could inspire a deeper, much more meaningful practice of learning for a generation that has no

time to read a book, but spends scores of hours each week listening, or watching or creating

‘media.’” Encouraging readers about this new technology excites them, and in turn, they become

advocates of this new technology. Within both articles, it is true that no humor is employed.

Keen and Lessig employ other emotions though such as fear and sympathy. Besides, humor is

not always the best route because it can detract from the seriousness or validity of an argument.

The authors successfully persuade their readers without humor anyways.

Evidently, both authors successfully apply rhetorical techniques of ethos, logos, and

pathos. As a result, “Web 2.0” and “In Defense of Piracy” should be included in the next edition

of They Say/I Say. Both texts provide a clear example of a contemporary use of these classical

principles and hit on enough of the qualities of ethos, logos, and pathos to sufficiently persuade
 Nichols 7

their readers. So yes, the automobile, the telephone, the calculator, the computer, the Internet—

technology—is significant. It all has changed society, Keen argues for the worse, Lessig argues

for the better. The important thing is, both authors support their arguments and persuade their

readers using contemporary applications of classical rhetorical principles like ethos, logos, and

pathos. The fact that the authors display these principles in light of technology adds to the

strengths of the articles and the fact that they should be included in They Say/I Say because

technology is a very contemporary topic that all students are familiar with. It is up to the reader

to decide which argument in the end is better. However, it is a tough call, seeing as both authors

successfully implement the techniques proving that they are textbook worthy examples.
 Nichols 8

Works Cited

Keen, Andrew. “Web 2.0.” WeeklyStandard.com. The Weekly Standard. 15 Feb. 2006. Web. 27

Sept. 2010.

Lessig, Lawrence. “In Defense of Piracy.” The Wall Street Journal. Dow Jones and Company.

11 Oct. 2008. Web. 26 Sept. 2010.