Conflicting perspective, formed from the foundations of one’s morals and values, force individuals to employ the rhetoric style, language devices and textual form in successfully conveying their opinions. Often emotional and intellectual manipulation is used to demonstrate how one perspective displaces the other and such perspectives may arise through the distortion of truth and personal interests of the composer. These notions are explored in Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar, Ward Sutton’s coming Marriage is a Sacred Institution and Rick Warren’s Channel Seven interview on gay marriage. The composers of these texts use their appeal to the human condition and knowledge of the audiences’ values to present their deeply held convictions, stemming from personal belief or values.
Shakespeare’s representation of Brutus’s and Antony’s opinions towards Julius Caesar is an example of how personal interests results in conflicting viewpoints. Brutus’s core objective in his funeral oration is to justify the assassination of Caesar. In order to generate a stronger connection with his audience, he relies heavily on his ethos, using the repetition of “mine honour” to give him a heightened image as a presenter. His personal interests of defending his actions and involvement in the death of their leader serve as a source from which his conflicting opinion arises. Brutus employs parallel syntax and rhetorical questioning in “would you rather Caesar were living and die all slaves or that Caesar were dead to live all free men” which creates the illusion of choice and draws on the audiences sense of freedom. This choice is instantly restricted through the comparison of life and freedom with death, making the latter option the only logical one. This use of logical deduction appeals to the audiences’ logos and human condition, which values deductions and reasoning. Brutus’s effectiveness, however, is hindered by his misjudgements of his audiences’...