On p. 30 in RoM, Burke offers a distinction in how we can understand a person's morality. In particular, when describing the morality of the technical expert, he writes "If the technical expert, as such, is assigned the task of perfecting new powers of chemical, bacteriological, or atomic destruction, his morality as technical expert requires only that he apply himself to his task as effectively as possible" (30). This statement opens up the idea of ethos in rhetoric and offers it more as a malleable/changing concept rather than a static one. What interests me about this distinction in morality is how I present the idea of ethos and cultivating ethos to my students. Specifically, when thinking about how I discuss the idea, I sense that I present it as static, as something they develop (in positive, ethical ways) and can sustain with them in all rhetorical situations. My reasoning for presenting ethos in this way centers on my belief in the Ciceronian ideal of the "good orator" (I could be misstating this Ciceronian theme, but I'm just trying to get to his idea of the ethical or moral aspects that make up a good orator). Anyway, I realize that presenting ethos in this way is limited. I'm not suggesting that students develop a morality that is convenient for their rhetorical purposes, but rather I see value in Burke's recognition that people's moralities will be related or tied to their work. I'm not sure how to pose this question, but I see value in opening students to new understandings of morality and that it can be something that is both individual to a person as well as case-based in regards to the facts and circumstances that surround that person's life at a give moment.