Is anger a sign of righteousness?

[coberst]

Is anger a sign of righteousness?

Webster informs us that righteous is “acting in accord with divine or moral law”.

We often see US citizens, in our streets and byways, expressing their anger at certain actions taken by our government. On occasion this anger is directed at Big Bankers or some other group but generally it is directed at some action of government institutions.

“I’m mad and I won’t take it anymore” seems to be the general attitude often displayed by these demonstrators. I have concluded that most people identify the connection of anger to an argument signifies the righteousness of the argument and the person making the argument. Perhaps this is because anger often accompanies the pronouncements of preachers, priests, imams, rabies, and talk show hosts.

Do you think that anger necessarily signifies righteousness?

Do you think that anger signifies righteousness; but only for those protests for which you agree?

[BienvenuJDC]

Anger can be for far too many reasons. Just because there is one group of people who express their protests for things in which they feel strongly about does not mean that anger is exclusive to those reasons. There may be a drunk man beating his wife or children out of anger, because... because he spilled his beer (or whatever reason). Murder is often caused by feelings of anger... anger that is caused by jealousy.

To assume that ALL people with a righteous belief system are angry DUE to their beliefs is to assume too much.

To assume that ALL people who are angry are angry BECAUSE of some sort of righteous belief system is also to assume too much.

[Oniw17]

Anger seems to almost always be due to a lack of maturity. I very rarely get angry and whenever I do, I think it's kind of silly looking at it retrospectively. The other day, I punched somebody in the face because they wanted to use my phone and were rushing me while I was talking to my mom. Looking back I realized that since I've been away from home, the time I spend talking to my family is precious to me and I only got angry because it felt like he was trying to take that time away from me. So, I apologized later that day. Maybe there was a certain feeling of righeousness to my anger, but if one is mature, they can accept that there are different opinions about what is righteous and if one is logical, they can accept that their opinions, no matter how strongly held, aren't always or even usually correct. The only time anger is really acceptable in my point of veiw, which isn't necessarily any better than anyone else's point of veiw is when someone betrays your trust or harms your family, and even in those situations, forgiveness is almost always a better solution than anger, as far as I believe.

[Jozanny]

Anger can be positive if it leads to proactive activity, but corrosive if there is no correction for it. I know this from experience, and not asserting myself fast enough after taking it on the chin too many times, because raising my voice now probably won't do much in terms of improving anything--so if you ever get victimized, hard as it might feel, act, through proper channels. Road rage scenarios just leave more scars in their wake.

[BienvenuJDC]

Anger seems to almost always be due to a lack of maturity.

Anger is not the problem...it is HOW you respond to your anger that may be immature. Anger is merely an emotion that ALL people endure at some time or other...

[JuniperWoolf]

Genuine anger is almost always the result of people believing that they are in some way having something taken away from them, or they're being slighted or "ripped off" somehow. It doesn't really have anything to do with righteousness, it's just kind of a selfish reaction to percieved events.

Then there's the kind of anger that comes out of morality. I think that the emotion that most people feel when something that they're morally oppesed to (lets say child pornography) is primarily disgust. This perception of disgust by the indevidual might be rationalized into anger, but it requires rational thought (at least, that's what I think). Is this righteousness? As it was defined in the OP, yes it is.

Then there's the kind of "anger" that you see on tv a lot nowadays. Groups of people getting together to scream nonesensical catch phrazes in unison. I don't think that it's really "anger," I think that what they're feeling is the surge of adrenaline that comes with the mob mentality. I think this because their anger often makes no sense. It's like they're not trying to accomplish ANYTHING, like they don't even know what the hell is going on. It's not organized or directed, and that's what makes it mob mentality. This isn't rightousness, because there's no underlying system of morality. It's just... the style of the times. Anger for it's own sake.

[JacobF]

Anger can be for far too many reasons. Just because there is one group of people who express their protests for things in which they feel strongly about does not mean that anger is exclusive to those reasons. There may be a drunk man beating his wife or children out of anger, because... because he spilled his beer (or whatever reason). Murder is often caused by feelings of anger... anger that is caused by jealousy.

To assume that ALL people with a righteous belief system are angry DUE to their beliefs is to assume too much.

To assume that ALL people who are angry are angry BECAUSE of some sort of righteous belief system is also to assume too much.

Agreed. Anger can exist in many contexts. A policy might make me angry because it contradicts my values. This is not blind anger; it is the emotional result of a (hopefully) rational judgment. Then there is the anger that comes from stubbing my toe. It is an irrational anger, a knee-jerk response to physical pain that I cannot control (although I can control how I deal with it). There is no righteousness involved.


Genuine anger is almost always the result of people believing that they are in some way having something taken away from them, or they're being slighted or "ripped off" somehow. It doesn't really have anything to do with righteousness, it's just kind of a selfish reaction to percieved events.

Then there's the kind of anger that comes out of morality...

You make it seem as if anger in response to having something taken away from you has nothing to do with morality. Wouldn't you get angry if a moral injustice were done against you, such as having your car stolen? I think that type of anger goes deeper than mere selfishness.

[Revolte]

You make it seem as if anger in response to having something taken away from you has nothing to do with morality. Wouldn't you get angry if a moral injustice were done against you, such as having your car stolen? I think that type of anger goes deeper than mere selfishness.

Morals are individual, at least in the third fully matured version. With that being said, anger from having something stripped from you is pretty much a universal law. That also means that that type of anger HAS to come from some form of selfishness. That isnt to say that the individual is only thinking of themselves.

For example: A lady gets angry at a man because the man punched his four year old son. The lady's own moral code gos against such actions, so she is angry because of a personal feeling, but that doesnt effect her directly.

[billl]

Yeah, anger seems to catch the attention of primal receptors (or whatever). In such a context, nuance comes under suspicion. Maybe we tend to take sides.

Anger can be a good thing to have, but at a certain point, once there IS room to breathe, we have to let the ideas work through some period of debate and comparison on their own merits, and let the warning signals (anger, fear, etc.) take a back seat.

[JacobF]

Morals are individual, at least in the third fully matured version. With that being said, anger from having something stripped from you is pretty much a universal law. That also means that that type of anger HAS to come from some form of selfishness. That isnt to say that the individual is only thinking of themselves.

For example: A lady gets angry at a man because the man punched his four year old son. The lady's own moral code gos against such actions, so she is angry because of a personal feeling, but that doesnt effect her directly.

There is selfishness involved in having your car stolen in that you feel a lot worse than if, say, your neighbour's car was stolen, since it affects you directly. But there is still a moral level in a scenario of being "ripped off" or stolen from. Something of value that was rightfully yours was taken away from you; it is as much a moral issue as it is a selfish one. So I agree; anger is often inspired by selfishness. That does not, however, exclude morality. In your scenario, the lady projected her own values onto the situation and made a judgment. It may as well have been her own son being hit, though she would obviously feel more anger in that case (and rightfully so).

And what do you mean by "Morals are individual, at least in the third fully matured version"?

[loki456]

this is interesting,

zeno shares with us through stoicism that irrationality or illogical statements come from destructive emotions. now the question is, is anger a destructive emotion? the answer is in your definition i guess. is there such a thing as righteous anger? i'm not so sure, when an action goes against your moral code (which are social constructs tempered with individual experience) we feel a need to defend the victim - is this anger or simply a deep sense of justice. For i find that the rule of equality applies here 'that equals should be treated equally and unequals unequally. in proportion to there equality and inequality. And where injustic occurs is when equals are treated unequally and unequals treated equally'.

so I pose this question, when we see injustice and we allow anger to take a stand are we really just allowing a destructive emotion produce an irrational outcome? i.e banners with corny slogans, mobs flooding streets spewing forth useless rhetoric that half the mindless drones don't even understand.

Now i'm all for change if and when it's necessary, governments need to listen to its people and sometimes they need a hand in doing that, i'm a big fan of Ghandi. But no where do i see where Ghandi allowed anger to be his emotion for motivation. does that mean to say Ghandi was never angry? no, i'm just saying that it's possible that his motivation for his actions was the need to see a change and not anger for what was being done to his people.

Now personally, I don't think anger as an emotion is wrong. let me clarify, anger as an emotion to show our distain at an injustice is perfectly fine, however, if you allow it to motivate your actions it becomes desctructive.

you don't have to agree, and even though i've thought about this, it is more about generating a discussion.

hope this has added to the discussion pool

[MrRegular]

We, as the predominant sentient beings, have a responsibility to behave in as intelligently and with as little emotional drive as possible. Why? Because our emotions are nothing more than our own personal motivators, thus they are the very essence of our own narrow perspective. We should seek only the pure truth, not some hormone enduced, anthropospherical delusion.
We are the fruit of 6 billion years of cosmological effort and we should behave as such.

[coberst]

Anger is an emotion.

I once took a college course in acting. Acting 101 informs me that an actor is more effective it s/he makes the motions associated with an emotion than if that actor tries to first create the feeling and then the action will follow.

Emotions equal instinct. First, there is emotion, then comes feeling, then comes consciousness of feeling.

What are the emotions? The primary emotions are happiness, sadness, fear, anger, surprise and disgust. The secondary or social emotions are such things as pride, jealousy, embarrassment, and guilt. Damasio considers the background emotions are well-being or malaise, and calm or tension. The label of emotion has also been attached to drives and motivations and to states of pain and pleasure.

Antonio Damasio, Distinguished Professor and Head of the Department of Neurology at the University of Iowa College of Medicine, testifies in his book “The Feelings of What Happens” that the biological process of feelings begins with a ‘state of emotion’, which can be triggered unconsciously and is followed by ‘a state of feeling’, which can be presented nonconsciously; this nonconscious state can then become ‘a state of feeling made conscious’.

”Emotions are about the life of an organism, its body to be precise, and their role is to assist the organism in maintaining life…emotions are biologically determined processes, depending upon innately set brain devices, laid down by long evolutionary history…The devices that produce emotions…are part of a set of structures that both regulate and represent body states…All devices can be engaged automatically, without conscious deliberation…The variety of the emotional responses is responsible for profound changes in both the body landscape and the brain landscape. The collection of these changes constitutes the substrate for the neural patterns which eventually become feelings of emotion.”

The biological function of emotions is to produce an automatic action in certain situations and to regulate the internal processes so that the creature is able to support the action dictated by the situation. The biological purpose of emotions are clear, they are not a luxury but a necessity for survival.

“Emotions are inseparable from the idea of reward and punishment, pleasure or pain, of approach or withdrawal, of personal advantage or disadvantage. Inevitably, emotions are inseparable from the idea of good and evil.”

Emotions result from stimulation of the senses from outside the body sources and also from stimulations from remembered situations. Evolution has provided us with emotional responses from certain types of inducers put these innate responses are often modified by our culture.

“It is through feelings, which are inwardly directed and private, that emotions, which are outwardly directed and public, begin their impact on the mind; but the full and lasting impact of feelings requires consciousness, because only along with the advent of a sense of self do feelings become known to the individual having them.”

First, there is emotion, then comes feeling, then comes consciousness of feeling. There is no evidence that we are conscious of all our feelings, in fact evidence indicates that we are not conscious of all feelings.

Human emotion and feeling pivot on consciousness; this fact has not been generally recognized prior to Damasio’s research. Emotion has probably evolved long before consciousness and surfaces in many of us when caused by inducers we often do not recognize consciously.

The powerful contrast between emotion and feeling is used by the author in his search for a comprehension of consciousness. It is a neurological fact, states the author, that when consciousness is suspended then emotion is likewise usually suspended. This observed human characteristic led Damasio to suspect that even though emotion and consciousness are different phenomenon that there must be an important connection between the two.

Damasio proposes “that the term feeling should be reserve for the private, mental experience of an emotion, while the term emotion should be used to designate the collection of responses, many of which are publicly observable.” This means that while we can observe our own private feelings we cannot observe these same feelings in others.

Empirical evidence indicates that we need not be conscious of emotional inducers nor can we control emotions willfully. We can, however, control the entertainment of an emotional inducer even though we cannot control the emotion induced.

I was raised as a Catholic and taught by the nuns that “impure thoughts” were a sin only if we “entertained” bad thoughts after an inducer caused an emotion that we felt, i.e. God would not punish us for the first impure thought but He would punish us for dwelling upon the impure thought. If that is not sufficient verification of the theory derived from Damasio’s empirical evidence, what is?

In a typical emotion, parts of the brain sends forth messages to other parts of the body, some of these messages travel via the blood stream and some via the body’s nerve system. These neural and chemical messages results in a global change in the organism. The brain itself is just as radically changed. But, before the brain becomes conscious of this matter, before the emotion becomes known, two additional steps must occur. The first is feeling, i.e. an imaging of the bodily changes, followed by a ‘core consciousness’ to the entire set of phenomena. “Knowing an emotion—feeling a feeling—only occurs at this point.”

Quotes from The Feelings of What Happens by Antonio Damasio

[blazeofglory]

I never can correct myself without bursting into angers. I take it positively not corrosively in fact and I never can be pleased if I never get angry. It is a self fulfilling impulse.

This is a very intimate emotion of myself

[Revolte]

And what do you mean by "Morals are individual, at least in the third fully matured version"?


I always have a hard time explaining this one so I'll just do it in the same form I learned it.

1.First form of moral code: Believing something is true or untrue based on sight, common in toddlers

2.Second form: Believing something is right or wrong based of any Law or Rule: Common in adolescents

3.Third and final form: Believing something is right or wrong based off personal belief.

[Paulclem]

The Buddhist take on anger is that it is a destructive emotion that causes pain - physical and verbal - to others, and thus is to be avoided by training with meditation. This is difficult but worth the effort.

Having said that, the righteous anger aspect is seen as different. It has been mentioned by some other posters. (Rather than righteous anger, the tradition I follow terms it wrathful anger).

Such wrathful anger would occur when for example you stand up to someone who is bullying/ picking on another. It's not uncontrolled - it is very controlled and conscious - (if you've ever been in that situation very conscious) - and it's purpose is to protect rather than harm. Another example is when a Mother screams at her child to stop when they are approaching a road. It appears to be angry, but is in fact protective of the child.

Included in the definition of anger is also mild irritation, annoyance etc right up to full blown blind fury. All have an element of the uncontrolled about them, and usually end in tears.

[caddy_caddy]

In some situations the anger is necessary. It is not a sign of righteouseness but rather a sign that u are still alive ( emotionally ).
I don't get angry easily but if I see something that aggravates me, especially injustice , and I don't get angry because of it I feel that there is something wrong in me .
It is like the fuel oil , you need it for the combustion that makes you work and do the necessary step .
Still you need your brain to direct and control you in your movement .

[blazeofglory]

I love my anger the way I love a woman, for they belong to me, both in a different situation and way.

How can I be pleased if I was not angry or how can my wife please me if she has never seen me angry.

I will be a mass of dry bones and fleshes and not a human without my anger. My angers are precious and I never dispense with them. I simply maintain or manage them. I cannot ignore them. They always follow me like my shadows. Escaping them is impossible, the only moment of utter light blotch me but once the light dims the shadow becomes manifest.

[dizzydoll]

I seldom get angry because I realize theres a deeper meaning to everything that occurs. But sometimes I portray myself as angry when I am not really. At times I do this to see what reaction will come of it. Other times it works when I wish to get someone off my back. I have no emotion towards anger. If others become angry at me its usually because I will not submit to their views or ideas.

Good thread :thumbs_up