(March 31, 2019 at 5:21 am)Belaqua Wrote: Agreed. Anger is good, when justified.
In the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle lists anger as one of the passions that is necessary but dangerous -- it has to be held to a wise middle path. When allowed to go too far, it makes us crazy. But if you see something that should make you angry and you remain indifferent, this is also a moral failing.
The trouble is that Aristotle doesn't give any specifics about how and when and how much we ought to get angry. A wise man knows this, and getting angry correctly is one of the things that makes him wise.
Late to the party, and I ain't wading through the 20 page thread. So sorry if this has already been covered:
I tend to side with the Stoics on the issue of anger. To call anger moral is to subject morality to whim and unstable force. Therefore, anger (if it is to be considered moral at all) must have some kind of "stabilizing force" to force some kind of consistency upon it. Maybe it is as Plato says: "Anger guided by reason is better than raw wish fulfilment." In any case, I would tend to trust Plato's insights over Aristotle's. Blind rage can be of benefit in peculiar situations. But ought we ever trust it as a moral force? Even when it is understood that anger is dangerous, such a philosophy seems unwise.
