When is anger justified? A philosophical inquiry - Delaney Thull

Summary

The video script explores the moral dimensions of anger through philosophical perspectives, including Aristotle's doctrine of the mean, Stoicism, and Buddhist thought. It examines situations where anger is triggered and discusses whether it can be justified. The script also considers the role of anger in social change, highlighting the importance of managing this emotion to foster positive community action without succumbing to its negative aspects.

Takeaways

• 🤔 Anger is a complex emotion that can be both reasonable and impulsive.
• 📚 Aristotle's 'doctrine of the mean' suggests a balance in our emotional reactions.
• 🛌 Anger can be justified, like being unable to sleep due to a neighbor's loud music.
• 💡 Practical wisdom is needed to determine the appropriate level of anger and response.
• 🌪️ Stoics view anger as futile, as life is controlled by fate and our actions cannot change things.
• 🧘 Śāntideva questions the value of anger, suggesting we should not let others' negative emotions affect us.
• 📊 Strawson's theory of reactive attitudes sees anger as a natural part of human psychology for communication and accountability.
• 🚫 Anger can signal immoral actions, but it's important to respond appropriately.
• 🌍 Injustices like illegal pollution might warrant righteous anger to motivate community action.
• 🌟 Civil rights leaders warn against letting anger turn us bitter, advocating for seeing others as community members, not enemies.

Q & A

What is the core concept of Aristotle's 'doctrine of the mean'?

Aristotle's 'doctrine of the mean' suggests that there is an optimal point for our actions and emotional reactions, which requires practical wisdom to determine when and how strongly to react emotionally.

How does Aristotle's philosophy apply to a situation where a neighbor plays loud music?

Aristotle would consider various factors such as previous discussions with the neighbor, the time of day, and the neighbor's intentions to determine the appropriate level of anger and response.

What is the Stoic perspective on anger and uncontrollable life events?

Stoics believe that life is like an uncontrollable cart we're all tied to, and that anger is always wrong because it is futile and causes pain, as our actions cannot change the course of fate.

How does the philosophy of Śāntideva relate to the concept of anger?

Śāntideva questioned the value of anger, suggesting that since people often lack rational control over their emotions, we should strive not to let others' anger and cruelty affect us.

What does PF Strawson's theory of reactive attitudes imply about anger?

Strawson's theory posits that anger is a natural part of human psychology that helps us communicate blame and hold each other accountable, indicating that anger can signal when something immoral is happening.

Why might it be wrong to treat children's moral mistakes like those of adults?

It might be wrong because children are still developing their moral understanding, and treating their mistakes as those of adults could fail to account for their developmental stage and capacity for growth.

How can righteous anger be valuable in political philosophy?

Righteous anger, often invoked by witnessing injustice, can be invaluable for fueling change and motivating community action, as it can drive individuals to address and correct unjust situations.

What caution does Martha Nussbaum offer regarding righteous anger?

Nussbaum cautions that even righteous anger can lead to bitterness, vengefulness, or hatred, and we should calibrate our emotional responses to see others as community members, not enemies, despite our changing emotions.

What can we learn from anger according to the script?

We can learn that anger, though hard to control, is a natural part of human psychology that can help us communicate blame, hold each other accountable, and signal when something immoral is happening.

How can anger be both morally right and morally wrong according to different philosophies?

Anger can be morally right when it leads to positive action and change, as in the case of injustice. However, it can be morally wrong when it is futile, causes pain, or leads to negative emotions like bitterness or vengeance.

What is the importance of finding the right response to anger?

Finding the right response to anger is important because it allows us to navigate interpersonal conflicts, communicate effectively, and hold each other accountable without causing unnecessary harm or impeding social and moral communities.

Outlines

00:00

😤 The Nature of Anger and Morality

This paragraph delves into the complexity of anger as an emotion, questioning its moral justification. It introduces Aristotle's 'doctrine of the mean,' which suggests a balanced approach to emotions and actions. The example of a neighbor playing loud music is used to illustrate the need for practical wisdom in deciding when and how to react with anger. The paragraph also explores scenarios where anger seems unjustified, such as natural disasters, and contrasts the perspectives of Stoics, who view anger as futile, with those of philosophers who see anger as a tool for communication and accountability.

Keywords

💡Anger

Anger is depicted as a complex emotion that can be both reasonable and impulsive. It is central to the video's theme as it explores whether and when anger is morally justified. The video uses scenarios like a neighbor playing loud music and a natural disaster to illustrate how anger can arise from different situations and the subsequent moral considerations of acting on it.

💡Morally Right

The concept of 'morally right' refers to actions or emotions that are ethically justified according to certain principles or values. In the context of the video, it is used to question whether anger can ever be considered morally right, examining philosophical perspectives on the legitimacy of anger in response to various situations.

💡Aristotle's Doctrine of the Mean

Aristotle's Doctrine of the Mean is a philosophical concept that suggests the best course of action and emotional response lies between two extremes. In the video, this doctrine is used to discuss finding a balance in our emotional reactions, such as anger, and the importance of practical wisdom in determining appropriate responses to situations.

💡Practical Wisdom

Practical wisdom, as discussed in the video, refers to the ability to apply knowledge and experience to make sound judgments in real-life situations. It is crucial for understanding when and how to react with anger, as it involves evaluating the context and potential outcomes of one's actions.

💡Stoicism

Stoicism is an ancient Greek philosophy that emphasizes the development of self-control and fortitude to overcome destructive emotions. The video presents Stoicism as a perspective that views anger as always wrong because it is futile and causes pain, advocating for acceptance of life's uncontrollable events.

💡Free Will

Free will is the ability to make choices that are genuinely one's own. In the video, the concept is questioned in relation to anger, with philosophers like Śāntideva suggesting that our lack of rational control over emotions means we should avoid letting others' anger affect us.

💡Reactive Attitudes

Reactive attitudes, as proposed by philosopher PF Strawson, are natural human responses that express blame and hold others accountable for their actions. The video suggests that anger is a part of these attitudes and can signal when something immoral is happening, thus playing a role in our social and moral lives.

💡Accountability

Accountability refers to the responsibility one has to explain and justify their actions, especially when they have caused harm or broken social norms. In the context of the video, anger can serve as a mechanism to enforce accountability by signaling that something is wrong and prompting a response.

💡Injustice

Injustice refers to unfairness or inequality in the treatment of individuals or groups. The video highlights the role of righteous anger in response to injustice, suggesting that it can motivate individuals and communities to take action against unfair situations.

💡Transformative Power

The transformative power refers to the ability of certain emotions or actions to cause significant change or improvement. In the video, it is debated whether anger has the transformative power to lead to positive change or if its negative aspects ultimately limit its effectiveness.

💡Emotional Responses

Emotional responses are the reactions individuals have to situations based on their feelings. The video emphasizes the importance of calibrating emotional responses, particularly anger, to ensure constructive outcomes and maintain positive relationships with others.

Highlights

Anger is a complex emotion that can be both reasonable and impulsive.

Aristotle's doctrine of the mean suggests a balance for emotional reactions.

Practical wisdom is needed to determine appropriate emotional responses.

Anger can be justified in certain situations, such as a neighbor's noise disrupting sleep.

The Stoics believed anger is always wrong, as it is futile and causes pain.

Life's uncontrollable events, like tornadoes, are compared to the noise of a neighbor by Stoics.

Śāntideva questioned the value of anger due to our lack of rational control over emotions.

Strawson's theory of reactive attitudes views anger as a natural part of human psychology.

Anger can signal when something immoral is happening, aiding social and moral accountability.

The appropriate response to anger can be challenging, especially with children.

Righteous anger can fuel change and motivate community action against injustice.

Philosophers like Gandhi, Mandela, and King Jr. warned against the negative outcomes of righteous anger.

Emotional responses should be calibrated to see others as community members, not enemies.

Aristotle's case-by-case approach is practical for resolving interpersonal conflicts.

The potential of anger to spread from one person to another is highlighted by Śāntideva's philosophy.

The transformative power of anger is limited by its inherent negative elements, as argued by Nussbaum.

The moral dilemma of acting on anger and its potential to change things for the better is discussed.

The impact of a nearby factory's illegal pollution on community health raises questions about the morality of anger.

Transcripts

Anger is a complicated emotion.

It can feel reasonable and righteous or impulsive and uncontrollable.

But is it ever morally right to be angry? And if so, when?

One of the most foundational understandings of anger

comes from the Greek philosopher Aristotle

who proposed an idea called “the doctrine of the mean.”

In this model, there’s a sweet spot for our actions and emotional reactions,

and it's up to you to develop practical wisdom about when you should feel what

and how strongly to feel it.

For example, let’s say you’re going to sleep early

because you have an important meeting tomorrow

and your neighbor just started blasting music.

If you can’t sleep, you might botch your meeting,

so feeling angry is definitely understandable.

But how much anger should you feel? And what actions, if any, should you take?

To answer these questions, Aristotle would need to know more details.

Have you previously talked to your neighbor about this issue?

Is it a reasonable time to be playing music?

Is your neighbor trying to antagonize you, or are they just enjoying their evening?

Relying on practical wisdom in Aristotle’s case-by-case approach

makes a lot of sense for navigating interpersonal conflicts.

But what about when there’s no one to blame for your anger?

Imagine a tornado completely destroys your house

while your neighbor’s home is untouched.

No amount of anger can undo the disaster,

and there isn’t really a suitable target for your frustration.

Yet for the ancient Stoics,

the tornado and the noisy neighbor are basically identical.

The Stoics believed life is like an uncontrollable cart we’re all tied to,

and we can either learn to go with the flow

or hurt ourselves fighting its momentum.

In their logic, we all live at the whims of fate,

and our actions can never actually change things—

whether it's a natural disaster or how others act towards us.

So Stoics believe anger is always wrong,

since it causes pain and is ultimately futile.

The 8th century Indian Buddhist philosopher Śāntideva

also questioned our free will and the value of anger,

arguing that because people often lack rational control over their emotions,

we should endeavor not to let their anger and cruelty spread to us.

But even if it’s hard for us to control our anger,

there might be something we can learn from it.

Philosopher PF Strawson’s theory of reactive attitudes

suggests that experiencing anger is a natural part of human psychology

that helps us communicate blame and hold each other accountable.

In this model, anger can be an important part

of letting us know when something immoral is happening,

so removing it would impair our social lives and moral communities.

But finding the right response to those psychological alarm bells can be tricky.

For instance, if you were supervising cruel, disrespectful young children,

it might be natural to feel anger,

but it would be wrong to treat their moral mistakes

like those of fully formed adults.

So when should you act on anger?

And can it ever help change things for the better?

Let's imagine your community is experiencing serious health issues

because a nearby factory is illegally polluting the water supply.

A long tradition in political philosophy argues that the righteous anger

often invoked by witnessing this kind of injustice

can be invaluable for fueling change and motivating community action.

In unjust situations like this,

it could be a moral mistake to suppress your anger,

instead of channeling it into positive action.

But other philosophers argue that anger has an inherent negative element

that limits its transformative power.

Philosopher Martha Nussbaum pointed out that famous civil rights activists

such as Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, and Martin Luther King Jr

warned that giving yourself over to even the most righteous anger

can lead one to become bitter, vengeful, or hateful of others.

They cautioned that we should carefully calibrate our emotional responses

to ensure that we see others not as enemies

but as community members with whom we must learn to coexist,

regardless of our ever-changing emotions.