The Instigator
ForsakenLegion
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
lukevara
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Anger Can Be A Good Moral Motivation

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/23/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 221 times Debate No: 42862
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

ForsakenLegion

Pro

1) Anger is a virtue which one has had in them since birth
2) Good temper is a mean with respect to anger, good temper is placed in the middle position
3)One who is angry at the right things and with the right people, and further, as he ought, when he ought, and as long as he ought, is praised
4) Virtue in anger can be used properly when all three: excessive, deficient and good temperament are in place.
5) Anger can morally motivate us into a situation if one uses the sense of good or bad
6) When anger is used properly it will provide us with positive reinforcement in what is needed to be achieved.
7) Good temper we oppose the excess rather than the defect, for not only is it commoner, but bad-tempered people are worse to live with.
lukevara

Con

ITS NOT NECESSARILY THE CASE that we are all born with anger. On which grounds do you base this claim? Are you aware of every though and ability that a human is born with? IT IS POSSIBLE for one to be praised for being angry in the "Right" fashion, but shall we praise Hitler for being angry at the Jews? On what basis does anyone declare anger to be right in any situation? Anger differs between those of men without standard. IT IS IRREVERENT that anger provides positive reinforcement because it has no basis on deciding what is good or bad. Anger is not a virtue at all, virtue needs no vices. You claim that anger can be morally motivating by using it in a sense or bad, again, how does one use anger to distinguish from good or bad when anger is inherently bad itself?
Debate Round No. 1
ForsakenLegion

Pro

Hitler being angry at the Jews is an IRRELEVANT concept is wrong since it stated "as he ought " angry with the right things. Anger "IF" used correctly will thrust someone who is thought to be weak or a coward will swiftly change to courage and being able to stand up to something when anger is being disposed correctly. IT IS NOT NECESSARILY THE CASE that someone who is without a standard should always be making the wrong decision when it comes to using anger. Anger is that when someone feels slighted and can use this for awareness of where they are in the context of competition and vault themselves over a hurdle that is presented to them. IT IS POSSIBLE for someone to be praised for being in the right fashion if it is something that is morally right such as stated before one needs to have to proper balance of using this anger for right. Anger is not inherently bad since it is something that everyone experiences on a regular basis. Are you stating that everyone is inherently bad? It is a natural and healthy reaction to become angry when one feels threatened or slighted.
lukevara

Con

ITS NOT NECESSARILY THE CASE that Hitler is an IRRELEVANT topic. What I meant by the comment on Hitler, which I wonder if was worded badly or maybe below your threshold of thought processing, is that who is to say anger is used correctly? To each individual their anger feels as though it is correct and of that of good moral worth. IT IS POSSIBLE to use anger as a means of accomplishing a task by moral motivation, but do other emotions not do the same? We have lunacy, which generally makes people go crazy and resort to absurd antics. Much like anger, they can be compelled to do something that they would otherwise not have done. If one is to be under the influence of narcotics or depressants they may partake in activities they otherwise may not have done. This in turn renders anger as an emotion meaningless. Anger does not provide proper judgment and motivation, instead it replaces it. By using anger as a substitute, one may be lead down an uncontrolled path in which does not provide anything good at all.
Debate Round No. 2
ForsakenLegion

Pro

IT IS MORE THAN LIKELY POSSIBLE that it was worded incorrectly and you could not process what you wanted to produce in your argument but I shall let that slide. An individual who feels anger from a wrong that is done to them still has to know what the underlying issue is at hand since it is a sub-emotion to another issue at hand. Here is a little quote from a friend I know called Aristotle.
"Righteous indignation is a mean between envy and spite, and these states are concerned with the pain and pleasure that are felt at the fortunes of our neighbors; the man who is characterized by righteous indignation is pained at undeserved good fortune, the envious man, going beyond him, is pained at all good fortune, and the spiteful man falls so far short of being pained that he even rejoices."
Let's break this down for you, if one is not outraged, one is not paying attention. If one witnesses someone else suffer undeservedly, that ought to madden one. Something inside has to click and let one know that they feel anger and that will motivate one to do the rightful thing. Anger is a basic emotional operating system, this is a core emotion which goes in hand with fear and love. Anger is an impulse of energy that does give us a tool to use it and be proactive with it. Knowing how the anger works and what triggers it one can see that it is good for them. This helps different aspect in one's life by helping them achieve goals otherwise that they could not achieve by not having anger in control. One can clearly see that this sense that is being used to determine whether it is good or not lies within us.
Your argument is IRRELEVANT.
lukevara

Con

IT IS NOT NECESSARILY THE CASE that you understood Aristotle if you are attempting to tell me that anger is a sub-emotion. Aristotle revers to anger as a virtue in which is strengthened through training and practice. As for what you say about anger ITS POSSIBLE that you can not be paying attention and still become outraged. Anger is a vile and uncontrollable emotion as said before, in no way does it do as Aristotle says which is "Add to our virtues". There are no specific and necessary conditions to which make anger arise because it is a rampant emotion in which ones own self does not control. IT ITS IRRELEVANT that anger may be helpful in achieving goals due to the fact that it always does not produce the same result. Anger wild like that of animals, in which reason does not play a part. If an emotion works in a way in which it follows just a bit of logic it then can constitute itself as not being anger. To use anger in strategy and in a way in which it is controlled is impossible, if you believe that to be the case, then anger is not the emotion you speak of.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.