Is There a Good Side to Greed?

Michael Douglas’ character’s speech involves the expert usage of Aristotle’s concepts of Logos, Ethos, and Pathos. By emphasizing that his success is contingent upon the share-holders’ success, he appeals to a sense of community (Ethos), and by providing a plethora of facts, statistics, and details, he appeals to the audience’s sense for logic (Logos). However, the most effective aspect of his speech, and in my opinion, the most unconventional, is his appeal to the emotions of the audience through his emphasis on the necessity of greed (Pathos). By promoting greed as a positive characteristic, and by turning it into a means of accomplishing goals, he appeals to his audience on an emotional level. It is unlikely that men involved in business of the stock market’s caliber have not dealt with or personally felt extreme greed. Many men probably feel (and the key word here is feel) disgust when they hear that word, or at least shame. Hence, Douglas’ character’s use of this particularly heavy word would most certainly impact his audience. The fact that he expertly shifts the word’s connotation from negative and destructive to positive and productive is not a reflection of the mutability of the word, but rather his skill as a rhetorician. He realizes that if he is to persuade his audience that his way is the right way, he needs to subvert their existing perceptions rather than blatantly challenge them. He appeals to their feelings about greed and selfishness, and in so many words, tells them that it is not only okay to be selfish and self-seeking, but it is actually necessary in the world of business.

In response to Plato, Aristotle comments, “In deciding whether something that has been said or done is morally good or bad, not only should we pay regard to the goodness or badness of the saying or deed itself, but we should also take into account the persons by whom and to whom it was said or done, the occasion, the means, and the reason—whether, for example, to bring about a greater good, or to avert a greater evil” (94-95). Here, rather than judge a story, poem, or speech as detrimental based on its content alone, Aristotle encourages a contextual analysis as well as a thorough investigation into the author or speaker’s perceived intent. This is most certainly a departure from Plato’s admonition against nearly all creative poetry and prose, but it, too, has its faults as evidenced in Douglas’ speech. It is not clear from watching one scene whether or not his speech was successful in persuading his audience, but he certainly had a major impact on them. By appealing to Logos, Ethos, and particularly Pathos, he affected them on the three main aspects of their being. The problem now is not how effective he was or wasn’t, but rather, whether or not his overall aim is morally good or bad. He claims to be averting a greater evil by his encouragement of a generally negative trait. Plato would argue that he is absolutely morally corrupt and dangerous for the masses based on this promotion of greed, whereas Aristotle would most likely avoid disregarding the speech as immoral without further investigating the character, the situation, and the next few scenes.

However, it is not possible to always discover an author or speaker’s intent, nor can a reader or listener ever have all the information from all perspectives, and thus, Aristotle’s point loses its validity. The only way that I can make sense of the two rivaling perspectives is as follows: Aristotle appreciates good rhetoric first and foremost because if it is done right, it will serve as a catharsis for the people which will, in effect, aide them in their endeavors; conversely, Plato appreciates morally instructive works because anything else, well done or not, will only lead the people into destructive behaviors. One can look at Douglas’ speech from both perspectives—he is leading the people astray through his illegitimate use of rhetoric or he is leading the people to success through his effective rhetorical appeals to their senses. I highly doubt that Douglas’ demand for greed is an effort to bring about a greater good for anyone but himself, but the fact remains that he is a fine rhetorician.