Justified Anger and Empathy

This posting is concerned with justified anger. It is partly a response to Chapter 5 of Nancy Sherman’s “Stoic Warriors” (1). It is all too easy to become angry. However it is much more difficult to switch anger off. Indeed it might be argued being angry is like being on a slippery slope. We are unable to control anger in the same way an alcoholic cannot control her drinking. Just as an alcoholic damages both herself and others so an angry person damages both herself and others. According to the ancient stoic philosophers the response of a wise person to her potential anger should be an attempt to eliminate this anger. The question this posting addresses is this, are the stoics correct and should we also attempt to eliminate anger in our lives?

Anger is usually aroused by some negative event occurring in our lives. I will argue that due to the various causes of negative events some anger may be justified and some anger may not. In the vintage TV series Fawlty Towers the hotel’s proprietor Basil beats his car in anger with a stick when it breaks down. Intuitively such anger seems to be inappropriate. Sherman considers the anger of Hugh Thompson in response to the massacre at My Lai during the Vietnam War. Thompson’s anger helped him to courageously save others from being massacred. Clearly Thompson’s anger was not inappropriate. However the question might be asked was his anger necessary to help stop the massacre? Might not a calm rational moral person also have helped to stop the massacre? I will argue not. I will argue Thompson’s anger was not only an appropriate reaction to the massacre but was also a necessary condition needed by him in order to help stop the slaughter.

In order to fully understand whether anger is justified we must examine the circumstances in which negative events occur in our lives. Basically there seem to be two types of negative events which cause anger. Firstly events which we regard as morally wrong, for example the My Lai massacre. And secondly events which frustrate our desires or ambitions, for example Basil Fawlty’s car breaking down so frustrating his desire to drive from A to B.

I will consider first whether our anger is justified at events which we regard as morally wrong. I will now argue briefly that both a consequentialist and a deontologist would agree anger serves no useful purpose in reacting to events which they regard as morally wrong. I will then further argue any morality based on empathic caring would regard anger at such events not only as justified but also a necessary condition the agent needs in order to act well. Consequentialist ethics believes in maximising some good in the world. This good might be happiness, satisfied lives, the choices available to people and so forth. What form this actual good takes need not concern this discussion. Whatever good consequentialistism seeks to maximise, someone’s actual choice, about how to maximise this good, is a purely rational decision. It follows an agent’s anger plays no part in making her decision. It further follows anger is not a necessary condition in order to act well. If morality is conceived of as simply comprised of rights and relevant duties then someone’s anger again plays no part in her actual decision. She simply sees her duty and acts upon it. It might of course be true that her anger acts as a catalyst making doing her duty easier. It follows in any deontological system of morality being angry is also not a necessary condition for an agent to act well. It might be argued by not expressing anger at such events might damage the agent and that by not expressing anger she does not express her true self. It seems to me that because under any consequentialist or deontological system of morality the expression of anger does no useful work any such expression is not only unnecessary but might also be considered as mere posturing.

In previous postings I have suggested that intuitively morality is based on acting in accordance with our empathic concerns as outlined by Slote. Let it be accepted that morality is indeed based on empathy for others. It follows,

“Actions are morally wrong and contrary to moral obligation if, and only if, they reflect or exhibit or express an absence (or lack) of a fully developed empathic concern for (caring about) others on behalf of the agent.” (2)

The question that must now be addressed is this, is it possible to have a fully developed empathic concern for others when these others are being wronged and not have some anger? Empathic concern for others is clearly not based on rationality. Empathic concern for others is based on the ability to experience the feelings of others. Let it be accepted if some person is wronged she must feel some emotion. If the above is not accepted then the whole idea of basing morality on empathic caring becomes nonsense. Someone who is wronged may feel various emotions such as pain, grief and sorrow but must she also feel anger? Let anger be defined as a sense of displeasure at some perceived wrong. It might be objected this definition is too weak and anger should be defined as a strong sense of displeasure at some perceived wrong. However anger can vary from mild anger, annoyance, to extreme anger, uncontrollable rage. It follows anger can be defined as having some sense of displeasure at some perceived wrong. I fully accept such a definition is an incomplete definition in the case of extreme anger such as rage. I suggested above it would be impossible for someone who has been wronged to feel no emotion. This emotion must be a negative emotion giving her a sense of displeasure. It follows if someone has been wronged that she must feel some anger. It further follows from the definition of empathy, if I have empathic concern for someone who has been wronged then I must feel some anger. Let it be accepted morality is based on empathic caring It can be concluded if an agent is to act morally in response to some moral violation then it is a necessary condition for her action that she feels some anger with regard to the violation. It can be further concluded Hugh Thompson’s anger was not only an appropriate reaction to the massacre at My Lai but was also necessary condition for him to help stop the massacre.

Finally I will consider whether anger caused by events which merely frustrate our desires or ambitions can be justified. It seems to me the answer to this question simply depends on whether our anger is useful in helping us satisfy our desires or achieve our ambitions. Basil Fawlty seemed to have no justification for beating his car with a stick. Such behaviour did not aid him in furthering his desire to go from A to B. Indeed such behaviour might have frustrated this desire. However someone’s anger at being passed over for promotion may be justified. She might use her anger as encouragement to work harder and achieve promotion at a later date. In these circumstances someone’s anger can be justified provided she is able control her anger. If however she is unable to control her anger, like the alcoholic who is unable to control her drinking, she should attempt to eliminate this anger.

1. Nancy Sherman, 2005 Stoic Warriors, Oxford.
2. Michael Slote, 2007, The Ethics of Caring and Empathy, Routledge. 

Genetic Enhancement and the bondage of future people by present people

In chapter 8 of “Enhancing Evolution” Harris considers the view of Habernas that the use of genetically enhancing technologies might involve the bondage of future people by present people. This is an example of good rhetoric, but what does in mean if anything. In this posting I will examine exactly what is meant by “the bondage of future people”. I will assume the bondage of future people must affect their ability to make autonomous decisions. It follows I must consider how genetic enhancement might affect autonomy. Autonomy might be affected in two possible ways.
1. Genetic enhancement might mean the choices available to some future agent are curtailed.
2. Genetic enhancement means a future agent’s capacity to make autonomous decisions is damaged.

In this posting I will not consider the second of these possibilities. The reason being I believe any genetic manipulation which damages someone’s capacity to make autonomous decisions cannot be a genuine enhancement. Prima facie it might seem, provided genetic enhancement does not damage a future agent’s capacity to make autonomous decisions, that genetic enhancement does not affect his autonomy. Consider the possible genetic enhancements mentioned by Harris such as an increased resistance to the development of cancer or life extension. Clearly if such enhancements do not directly affect an agent’s mental status they do not affect his capacity to make autonomous decisions. Moreover it would still possible for an agent to jeopardise his enhanced status by engaging in dangerous pastimes such as motor racing.
It might of course be argued the fact an agent has an increased resistance to cancer and the prospect of greater longevity means he doesn’t see the prospect of engaging in dangerous pastimes as a sensible option. It might then be concluded that because genetic enhancement might cut down on an agent’s available options, even if his capacity for autonomy is unaltered, his ability to make autonomous decisions is slightly damaged. Harris argues future agents would gladly accept such a slight limitation on their ability to make autonomous decisions in exchange for the benefits of enhancement. He further argues vaccination of children against childhood diseases may slightly limit their ability to make future choices, but that no one seriously questions such vaccination. Indeed it might be argued limiting someone’s future choices does not damage their ability to make autonomous decisions. Someone may wantonly choose among a large array of options; yet few would argue such decisions are autonomous, see Frankfurt (1999, Necessity, Volition, and Love, Cambridge University Press, page 106). It might then be further argued for an agent to retain the ability to act autonomously he does not need a large number of options, he only needs options he can care about. According to this view for an agent to act autonomously simply means he is able to do what he wants. If this simple view of autonomy is accepted then even if genetic enhancement limits the options available to an agent it does not necessarily limit his ability to make autonomous decisions provided he has options he can identify with. It is very easy to imagine future agents identifying with living longer and not getting cancer! It can be concluded even genetic enhancements limit the options available to an agent that this might not affect his ability to make autonomous decisions.
I believe such a conclusion depends on a simplistic view of autonomy. Autonomy is a hybrid concept. This concept includes identifying with one’s choices, caring about something, and making a reflective choice. Furthermore whilst autonomy clearly has instrumental value it also has intrinsic value. To me the intrinsic value of autonomy lies in being recognised as the kind of person who has the right to make his own decisions. Moreover it seems to me if people now take decisions on behalf people in the future they are failing to recognise the intrinsic value of their autonomy. As has been noted above Harris assumes future persons would gladly give up some autonomy in order to benefit from enhancements. It seems to me there are two objections to this assumption.
1. Provided we are recognised as the kind of person who has the right to determine his own future then any attempt to determine our future fails to recognise the intrinsic value of our autonomy.
2. Harris automatically assumes future people would want to be enhanced even if this limits their autonomy. Such an assumption is dangerous for as was pointed out by Berlin (1969, Four essays on liberty, The Clarendon Press, page 132) this assumption seems to be based on what some idealised future person would choose rather than an actual person.

Harris would doubtless reply to my objections by arguing many of the things parents do for their children affect their future autonomy; education for example. He might further argue that by doing so parents do not damage their children’s future status as the kind of persons who have the right to make their own decisions. It would follow not all attempts to benefit someone damages the intrinsic value of his autonomy. I accept parents do not usually damage the intrinsic value of their children’s autonomy. However I am not at all sure it can then be argued by analogy that some genetic enhancements also do not damage the intrinsic value of autonomy. It seems to me the analogy fails to work because the usual benefits parents confer to their children differ in a significant way from genetic enhancement. The usual benefits parents confer to their children may be rejected by these children later in life. For instance someone may reject the benefits of his education and lead a slothful or purely hedonistic life. It seems non genetic benefits may be accepted or rejected. This ability to accept or reject these non genetic benefits means the intrinsic value of an agent’s autonomy is not damaged in this context. However it might be impossible for an agent to reject a genetic enhancement. It follows even if a particular genetic enhancement does not greatly damage the intrinsic value of someone’s autonomy the cumulative effect of many enhancements might. It might then be concluded Habernas is correct in his belief that the use of genetically enhancing technologies might involve the bondage of future people by present people.
In the light of the above discussion some might possibly conclude that genetic enhancement should not be permitted. I believe such a conclusion would be premature and that genetic enhancement should be permitted subject to safeguards. I argued above the way some parents attempt benefit their children might seem to partly determine their future. I further argued in practice such attempts do not damage these children’s autonomy because these benefits may be accepted or rejected. These benefits may be seen as gifts. It seems to me provided genetic enhancements can also be seen as gifts that these enhancements should be permitted. It follows Habernas’ belief may be wrong and that genetic enhancements do not bind future generations, provided these enhancements can be seen as a gift. However the idea of genetic enhancement as a gift must be explored a little further. It must be asked if a genetic enhancement is a gift to who is the gift intended. There seem to be two possible answers to this question.
1. The enhancement is a gift to those people who are enhanced.
2. The enhancement is a gift to future generations.

A gift it something the recipient can reject. You cannot force someone to accept a gift. It may of course be bad manners to reject a gift. Let it be assumed that some genetic enhancement is seen as a gift to future generations. It follows if a genetic enhancement is a gift then it must be possible to undo this enhancement for these future generations; even if the enhancement cannot be undone for particular individuals. I suggest in this context no genetic enhancement should be permitted until it is possible to undo this enhancement for future generations. Let it be assumed that some genetic enhancement is seen as a gift to those people who are enhanced. It follows the enhanced person must be able to see his genetic enhancement as a gift which he must be able to decide to use or not use. I suggest in this context any enhancements someone must use should not be permissible.