Morally Productive Anger in Western Society

The morality of emotions is one of the most interdisciplinary areas of philosophy. Anger, as an emotion, can do what all emotions can, which is to motivate our actions. However, this article will go a step further and explore anger in western society and how moral anger is constructive when used productively. This will be contrasted with current philosophical, psychological and cross cultural ideas of different forms of anger. The following article argues that today's Western society does not know how to morally and productively utilize anger to achieve moral good. Therefore, we need to restructure our emotions to achieve moral anger as motivation for action at the right times, events and people. The leading message of this article is hence, “how we collectively do anger needs work.” (Flanagan, 2021, p. xi). 

To examine this epistemic problem of anger in modern day Western society, we need to take an interdisciplinary approach and use views from both anthropology, psychology as well as cross-cultural philosophy. The cognitive view of emotions approaches them as an intelligent interpretation of events that provide us information essential to our survival. The American Psychological Association even says that “anger is a completely normal, usually healthy, human emotion.” (Flanagan, 2021, p. 56). When observing anger from a multicultural perspective it is clear how much of our emotions are shaped by societal norms and culturally derived in different countries and religions. Anthropological and cultural psychologists can deconstruct different cultures to see how emotions are culturally derived. Such as in Buddhism, where anger is immoral, and Japan where anger and aggression rates are much lower than the West. Therefore, it could be said that in Western society today, anger is not being expressed morally and that's why many think it's immoral and we should sustain from feeling anger altogether. 

However, contrary to many popular beliefs, emotions are things we do, not just how we feel. Virtues and vices include emotions, typically being viewed in philosophy as an ambivalence. The stoics, such as Seneca, believe that emotions are judgements to things outside of our control (Seneca, 1928). Stoics, the masters of self, recommend detachment from external things such as emotions as all judgements are false due to relying on external goods. I disagree with these philosophical approaches to emotions and instead support an Aristotelian view that a virtuous person needs to balance emotions and their actions. This is to say that emotions inform action and that actions guide emotions in return. This is also supported by virtue ethics which focuses on character and the cultivation of emotions to shape a central morality and Adam Smith's insights for morality as emotions that are motives to the effect it produces (2012, p. 14).  

Moreover, not all emotions can be labeled moral emotions, the elicitors and action tendencies of an emotion can determine its morality (Haidt, 2003, p. 258). A moral emotion goes beyond self interest but instead is linked to the welfare of another being or society as a whole. This is to emphasise the point that prosocial behaviours such as cooperation are linked with emotions through motivation. The more an event triggers an emotional reaction by disinterested parties the more moral it is said to be. The action of moral emotions are also always in response to something that will benefit the social order. There are multiple categories these emotions fall into but I will be focusing on ‘other condemning emotions’, which involves anger (Haidt, 2003, p.852).

Philosopher Owen Flagangan has undertaken cross-cultural and interdisciplinary research into the morality and productivity of anger in society. In this regard he has concluded that there has never been a more angry time in Western society, in the way that unnecessary and unproductive anger has overtaken productive anger. This has caused many people to conform to stoic beliefs that anger is counter productive to society. Aristotle has defined anger as “a desire accompanied by pain for a conspicuous revenge on account of a perceived slight directed without justification towards what concerns oneself or towards what concerns one's friend.” (Aristotle, 1909, p.2). Therefore, it could be said that anger is a response to unjust treatment and injustice that motivates vengeance directed at the persons perceived to have acted immorally. Controversically, Aristotle defends revenge as his definition of anger includes revenge of a slight. Despite this Aristotle makes it clear in the Nicomachean Ethics, that a virtuous person is gentle and “their anger is targeted at wrongdoing in a way that is neither excessive nor defective.” (Flanagan, 2021, p. 56). But he also believes that a person who never gets angry when slighted is stupid.  Consequently, it could be argued that a moral society is not achievable without anger and the indignation that accompanies it (Berns, 1979, p.16). Moreover, the argument goes that anger is important as it is used to detect injustice and when used effectively can deter oppressors from their evil ways (Flanagan, 2021, p. 35). 

Opponents against anger believe it is undisciplined, hungry for revenge, ego driven and a bad detector of the truth. This includes Seneca, a first century Stoic with his remarks that anger has ruined cities, many would argue that his statement is becoming true again, especially with the anger and political climate of the USA (Flanagan, 2021, p.35). Seneca, in his (1928)  On Anger, also believes there are various forms of anger. Some which are just noise, and others that are fierce, bitter words and curses or simply complaining and turning ones back. “There are a thousand other forms of a multiform evil.” (Seneca, 1928). Despite disagreeing with his position that all emotions are vices, it is important to consider these different types of anger he has categorised. 

Flanagan has categorised anger into multiple spheres including those of payback and passing anger which he argues are not moral forms of anger. He believes that to pass pain with no higher purpose or to simply vent pain to others is not good  (Flanagan, 2021, p. 46). The vice of current American anger practices is that of aiming to hurt one another. Currently in the United States of America, payback and passing anger are the dominant forms of anger in 43% of the country (Flanagan, 2021, p. 97).  Payback anger is a vengeful anger focused on revenge. But while payback is an intentional act, pain passing is often a lazy form of anger where “I am hurting and upset so I will lash out at you to make you hurt”. This is supported by ideas of modern ‘self care’ where venting to someone will be therapeutic and thus making it morally permissible to hurt a bystander. However this idea is not backed up by any psychological or philosophical evidence. Resentment also falls within these toxic outworkings of emotions. Much like payback and passing anger and its need for revenge, resentment can motivate us to hurt someone even though we may know that the action of hurting them is immoral. A person motivated by the passion of resentment is a dangerous person and it often happens in cultural waves, such as 1800 Christian Europe and is particularly prominent is Western society. (Jacobs, 2019). 

Other varieties of anger are moral, such as anger against structural racism and sexism, as it aims at ending these practices and is not done to cause pain to racists or sexists. But righteous anger can still cause pain. The anger causing the Black lives matter movement, points out racist behavior, and can still hurt people. Anger does motivate us to act aggressively, including punishment of moral transgressions in order to deter future transgressions (Molho et al., 2017, 376). This is of crucial importance, as moral anger is for the benefit of society and the unjust persons, as its goal is to make both morally good. Thus allowing for restoration of respectful relationships (Flanagan, 2021, p. 60). Other similar emotions such as disgust avoids the use of violence and instead motivates social distancing from transgressors (Molho et al., 2017, 376). Therefore anger is important to maintaining and preserving good social order, although this is highly dependent on how it is expressed (Flanagan, 2021, p. 60). 

Since this process of holding the unjust accountable causes them pain, this introduces a doctrine of double effect. In the context of authentic anger directed against racist beliefs or practices, the aim is not to harm the person who holds those views but to confront the injustice itself. When individuals are called out for racism, they may experience discomfort, guilt, or shame as a side effect of being asked to revise harmful assumptions. This emotional pain is not the purpose of the anger but an unavoidable consequence of challenging entrenched prejudice (Flanagan, 2021, p. 60). Consequently, the objective is not to engender feelings of guilt or shame in the other party; however, this is frequently an anticipated consequence of accountability through anger (Flanagan, 2021, p. 60).  Nevertheless, there is a degree of contention surrounding the question of whether anger can be considered a moral sentiment, and if so, whether it can be regarded as being in accordance with the principle of retribution. In situations involving civil disobedience, instances of violence and, in certain circumstances, the taking of life may be deemed permissible. This includes self-defence and the necessity of stopping malevolence. This is exemplified by the hypothetical scenario of the assassination of a figure such as Adolf Hitler. In the event of such an action, it is argued that the motivation for the act should be rooted in sentiments of love and compassion for the individual in question. While it is important to condemn Hitler's actions and prevent his repetition, it is also crucial to recognise the complexity of the human condition (Flanagan, 2021, p.60-61). This is exemplified by the capital punishment of Adolf Eichmann, who was punished both for revenge and as a deterrent to future transgressions and moral equality (Berns, 1979, p.16). It is imperative to purify oneself of selfish forms of anger and instead appeal to the double-effect principle, which stipulates that the objective is not to inflict harm upon others, but rather to achieve a greater moral good. 

As anger can be moral, we need to cultivate this moral anger in order to make it productive within society. Flanagan approaches this by stating the need to recalibrate our emotions, specifically anger and the way Western society expressed these values and norms as vices and virtues (2021, p. 4). He suggests this by a process of the natural method where the interdisciplinarity of emotions, both scientific and normative, needs to be processed together. This means asking questions like “How do we tell when our emotional practices are not doing their job? [and] What is their job?” (Flanagan, 2021, p. 38).  Once we have answers to these questions we then begin to see the societal changes required to make anger productive again as a moral emotion. To reduce payback, passing anger and resentment we need to reestablish Western norms around what are appropriate times and actions for moral anger. Appropriate times include those where the aim of the anger is ending unjust social actions. Aristotle is quoted saying “there is praise for someone who gets angry at the right things and with the right people, as well as in the right way, at the right time and for the right length of time” (1984; Flanagan, 2021, p. 56). Understanding the right things to be angry at, in the right way and at the right time is crucial in developing anger as a moral emotion. 

In conclusion, payback, passing anger and resentment has infected societies view of justified moral anger and has poised this important and motivational emotion in Western society (Flanagan, 2021, p.76). We need to learn to balance emotions, not to remove emotions like stoics which would omit the positive societal benefits that can be achieved with true moral anger. Therefore allowing us to embrace the human condition to feel emotion and learn from Aristotle that for anger to be moral and effective it should only be used at the right time and place to achieve good. 

References

Aristotle. (1909). The Rhetoric of Aristotle : a translation. Cambridge University Press.

Aristotle. (1984). The Complete Works of Aristotle. In J. Barnes (Ed.), Princeton University Press.

Berns, W. (1979). FOR CAPITAL PUNISHMENT. Harper's, 258, 15. https://www.proquest.com/magazines/capital-punishment/docview/1301545693/se-2

Flanagan, O. (2021). How to Do Things with Emotions: The Morality of Anger and Shame across Cultures. Princeton University Press. https://muse.jhu.edu/book/97872.

Haidt, J. (2003). The moral emotions. In R. J. Davidson, K. R. Scherer, & H. H. Goldsmith (Eds.), Handbook of affective sciences (pp. 852–870). Oxford University Press.

Jacobs, J. (2019). Adam Smith On Resentment. Adam Smith Works. https://www.adamsmithworks.org/documents/adam-smith-on-resentment

Molho, C., Tybur, J., Güler, E., Balliet, D., & Hofmann, W. (2017). Disgust and Anger Relate to Different Aggressive Responses to Moral Violations. Psychological science, 28(5), 609–619. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617692000

Seneca. (1928). On Anger (J. Basore, Trans.). Sophia Project Philosophy Archives. http://www.sophia-project.org/uploads/1/3/9/5/13955288/seneca_anger.pdf.

Smith, A. (2012). The Theory of Moral Sentiments. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511800153