Anger: the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
What could be virtuous about this otherwise negative and destructive emotion?
The Debate
The debate about anger’s relation to morality has been around for a long while. On the one hand, there are those who believe that anger indicates a deficiency in one’s character. This view has its origins in ancient Stoicism and, to an extent, in Buddhism. In his book On Anger, the roman philosopher Seneca speaks of emotion as the greatest vice and the most dangerous of passions. According to him, anger is not natural, its aim is always revenge, and it has to be eradicated.
On the other hand, not much to our surprise, there’s Aristotle and his followers. According to him, someone who demonstrates the proper amount of anger at the right things and time and towards the right people is good-tempered. While seeing some forms of anger as vices, Aristotle believed it could also be virtuous.¹ He admitted that it’s hard to determine at what point the right action ceases and turns into a wrong one.
I, for one, am inclined to side with Aristotle intuitively. If he is right, I wonder what could be virtuous about anger. So, let’s dive straight into it!
The Anatomy of Anger
Psychologists Paul Ekman and Robert Plutchik categorise anger as one of our basic emotions, which are innate, universal, automatic, and trigger behaviour with a high survival value. Even though many argue that anger traits are part of one’s temperament, which refers to the inherent habitual modes of behavioural and emotional response, it’s a consensus among psychologists that a combination of nature and nurture is involved in its manifestation. Thus, the connections between anger and behaviour can rest on particulars of both individual personality and cultural training.
Beyond psychology, we can confirm that anger is part of our nature as we turn to the testimony of philosophers and spiritual leaders. According to David Hume, “[a]nger and hatred are passions inherent in our very frame and constitution.”² Even the Dalai Lama says that “[i]f a human being never shows anger, then I think something’s wrong. He’s not right in the brain.”³
So it seems fair to say that certain character traits we possess, such as how prone we are to experience the phenomenal state of anger, are determined partly by heredity.
Phenomenal State vs. Behaviour
An important thing to note is that there’s a distinction between being angry and acting angrily. The former refers to the phenomenal state of anger (PSA). It is characterized by the psycho-physical changes which occur as a result of activation in the sympathetic division of the autonomic nervous system. Or simply put, it’s when we experience elevated heart rate, tensed muscles, redness, etc. We may notice that someone’s angry by a change in their facial expression, as they purse their lips or furrow their brows.
Angry behaviour, on the other hand, is any action that could result from that PSA, such as strong words, or striking. But being angry doesn’t necessarily mean acting angrily, and vice versa. Consider how sometimes parents simulate anger, so they can get their children to behave. Or when someone is being hot under the collar, yet has mastered his poker face and behaves in a way no one can tell how furious he is.
Even the Catholic Church recognizes the distinction between the involuntary phenomenal state of anger and the behaviour that follows. When scripture says, “Be angry, but sin not”, it’s the external manifestation of the anger that is deemed sinful.
If anger traits are something inherent we have no control over, then the phenomenal state of anger should not be the object of moral assessment. It’s unfair to blame someone for being morally bad because she was born with a spicier temperament, especially if she’s virtuous in her motivations and behaviour. Thus, to qualify anger as moral or immoral, it’s necessary that we examine aspects beyond the PSA, such as motivating reasons and behaviour.
Motivating Reasons
The reasons we get angry differ from person to person, simply because we care about different things. Consider how an exemplar of virtuousness, such as Mother Teresa, experiences anger because she cares about people’s well-being:
Am I ever angry or frustrated? I only feel angry sometimes when I see waste, when things that we waste are what people need, things that would save them from dying. Frustrated? No, never.⁴
Anger can be a fitting response when it presents its object as involving a moral (or normative) violation. If our anger is triggered by political corruption and prejudiced laws, this reveals our concern for fairness and racial equality and reflects well on our moral character.
That said, even if our anger is apt, the assessment of our character will probably depend on whether we react violently and unproductively or we approach the situation to ensure positive change. It’s the latter that’s likely to present us in a good light. Notice how the virtuousness of Aristotle’s anger, too, springs from its motivating reasons (the right things and people) and the right action. But what qualifies as a right action?
React vs. Respond
Anger is a double-edged sword. One can build or destroy with it. So what can ensure that the usefulness of apt anger outweighs its potentially destructive effects? I think the answer is hidden in the difference between an impulsive reaction and a mindful response. The former is likely to be destructive and reflect negatively on our moral character. Examples of impulsive reactions are strong words, shaming, and striking. But if, after provocation, we take the time to evaluate the situation, assess the reason for our PSA, and consider the best way to approach the problem, we are more likely to do the right thing. And a mindful response has the potential to reflect well on our moral character. I say has the potential since it could also lead to devious plotting.
Research done on emotional intelligence by García‐Sancho and colleagues shows that one of the reasons why angry people aren’t always aggressive is because they’re also able to understand, manage, and use their anger in healthy ways.⁵ That is, rather than reacting impulsively, they respond mindfully.
Anger can trigger different behavioural patterns in people, and I think the space between stimulus and response is the key element that reveals our moral character. Sometimes, when I get angry, I go for a run or clean the house. This allows me to step back and assess my emotion. It also allows me to follow Pythagoras’ advice to refrain from the impulsive reaction of speech and action in anger. Some people bite their nails or hit the fridge. Often, those latter actions hint at suppressed anger, which could be bad for those who experience it. And there are those who react with violence and manifest hate that often ends in destruction. That’s the ugly side of anger.
The Aim
Our actions promote certain aims. Fear, for example, aims at self-preservation. According to Seneca, anger always aims at revenge. But that belief is wrong. It seems reasonable to say that we can be angry with family members without wanting to harm them. Our anger will probably aim at recognition and a change in behaviour, instead. Or, as philosopher Adam Etinson suggests, anger may seek the satisfaction of remorse. His account explains how, when an offender expresses sincere remorse, this makes it easier and reasonable for the victim (or a third party) to forgo anger and forgive. So it seems that anger involves a variety of desires beyond revenge, such as recognition, remorse, and change.
There seems to be a common confusion that because anger is a negative emotion, it will reflect in a negative way on one’s moral character. It could, but it doesn’t have to. Just as it’s not sufficient to say that experiencing a positive emotion, such as joy, will reflect virtuously on one’s character. Since one might experience joy for the wrong reasons (torture) and, overwhelmed by this positive emotion, may end up doing immoral things.
I think that if our phenomenal state of anger is a fitting echo of concern, rooted in the well-being of those we care about, and if we respond mindfully in a way that leads to a pro-social change, then we could say there’s some virtuousness about anger.
And for those who would deny anger as a ‘virtuous emotion’, there is always the option of accepting it, on certain occasions, as an ‘emotion in accordance with virtue.’
Because it’s hard-wired in us as a psycho-biological necessity, anger has offered our ancestors an evolutionary advantage. Much like fear alerts us to danger, anger alerts us to injustice. It’s one way our brain communicates to us we’ve had enough. But much more than that, it’s an energizing emotion that prompts action against threats and communicates our status to others. Think of all the times you’ve inspected someone for such clues before approaching them for a favour. Yes, it’s an unpleasant experience, but that’s the strategy of the emotion to get us to pay attention when we need to.
If we follow the Stoic logic of eradicating negative emotions, then why not get rid of shame, as well? Yet, we often accuse people of being shameless — we need them to feel shame for their indecency so that the emotion can have a corrective force. Anger is similar.
And it could be necessary not only in a social context but also on a personal level, if we are to heal and move on from wrongdoing. Freud suggested that chewing on our frustration can lead to depression. But knowing how to articulate all the speeches we have in our heads effectively is more than an attempt at self-defense against bullies. It’s allowing our sorrows to find expression by communicating to the wrongdoer that they have gone beyond the permissible and that their action has been appraised as wrong. It doesn’t always have to be a raised voice and a tirade of bad words and insults, but neither should it be a silenced and lost one.
Conclusion
I don’t deny that anger can reflect poorly on our character, but instead, show that it has been misunderstood and only partially depicted. Indeed, there’s ugliness in anger as veins work their way up from one’s clenched jaw into the forehead of an aggressive person. For all its fury, it can destroy our relationships. But not necessarily. Anger can also energize us to confront injustice, face those who prey on the vulnerable, and create meaningful social change.
I prefer a peaceful world where anger doesn’t exist. But also one which knows nothing of indignity, insult, harm, violence, and injustice. Alas, we don’t live in such a world! And it seems like we need anger, just as much as we need fear so that we can appreciate those injustices and protect the ones we care about. When it’s apt and evokes a healthy response, anger can be used in a positive and pro-social manner. That, I think, is what could be virtuous about it!
If you like what you’ve read, you can support me by clicking on the Follow button — a guarantee you won’t miss out on my new articles.
Thank you!
References:
¹ Ross, David. Aristotle: the Nicomachean ethics. 1956, IV.5.
² Hume, David. A treatise of human nature. Courier Corporation, 2003, lll.3.3.
³ Lama, Dalai. 10 Questions to the Dalai Lama, Time Magazine. Available online: <https://www.dalailama.com/messages/transcripts-and-interviews/10-questions-time-magazine>
⁴ Teresa, Mother. The joy in loving: A guide to daily living. Penguin, 2000.
⁵ García‐Sancho, Esperanza, et al. “The personality basis of aggression: The mediating role of anger and the moderating role of emotional intelligence.” Scandinavian journal of psychology 58.4 (2017): 333–340.
