Being an Orator and Morality

Some questions come to mind when associating an orator as a individual with good morals. This brings me directly to the textbook and the reference to the "plain" style. Trenholm (2008) describes the plain style as "built ethos by convincing the audience of the speaker's good character, good sense, and trustworthiness". This description of speaking backs the claim that an orator is morally good, but questions come to mind when discussing the "middle" style.
"The middle style emphasized logos by impressing the audience with the soundness of the speaker's position; it consisted of intricate argumentation and careful philosophical distictions. (Trenholm, 2008)" This is where the questioning starts to come. If an individual with bad morals wants to convey their point all they have to do is back their arguments with good points and use a strategy that can disguise the negative parts of their attempt to persuade. The vigorous style can do an even better job of this.
The vigorous style involves the middle position and adds emotion to that formula. Once you do this it is even easier to sway a crowd to your favor. The point is that the better a orator that one individual is, the more they can be influental whether their morals are good or bad.