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