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

Anger Can Be 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: 286 times Debate No: 42852
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

lukevara

Pro

1)According to Aristotle virtues are characteristics based upon situations we find ourselves frequently placed in.
2)Out of the two types of virtues, moral and intellectual, moral is learned by habituation.
3)Anger is a virtue in which we have had in us from our birth.
4)Since a young age we have had the ability to become angered, but not the refinements of as to why or when.
5)By being placed in situations where anger is prominent, we then ourselves gain anger as a virtue in either a negative or positive moral way.
6)To be excessive, to have deficiency, and good temperament are three ways in which the virtue of anger can be seen within an individual.
7)By practicing the right habits, an individual can tell the morally acceptable from morally unacceptable
8)By using this sense of good and bad, anger can morally motivate us in either direction.
9)If we place ourselves in the middle of deficient and excessive in regards to anger, we can then be morally motivated to commit acts of moral goodness.
TiggaGrant

Con

IT'S NOT NECESSARILY THE CASE THAT virtues are characteristics develop upon the situations we are placed in. Seneca states that anger provokes wildly and cowardly actions. Seneca states that we have control of where we place ourselves and how we react in return. Also, the idea that Aristotle states that anger is developed at birth is incorrect because he already determines that it is learned from situations we are placed in.
First lets define anger, a desire accompanied by pain, for a conspicuous revenge for a conspicuous slight at the hands of men who have no call to slight oneself or one's friends. Anger has no intention of creating positive reactions because it's intentions are evil.
It is not possible for anger to be good because it only makes an individual develop a different state of mind. The frame of mind of someone enduring anger leads to unpleasant actions. Some examples of anger provoking bad outcomes are a ruler demanding respect from those ruled.
Debate Round No. 1
lukevara

Pro

ITS POSSIBLE THAT cowardly actions can be made when angry, but it is necessary to not confuse the two virtue for one. For instance IT IS NOT NECESSARILY THE CASE that we are born without virtue. Much like that of our own senses, we have to tap into our virtues and learn how to use them and harness their power in order to provide moral goodness for the world around us. What is mean that we are given the tools to handle the situations we are place in (Virtues from birth) but depending on the situations we place ourselves in determines the moral goodness of the virtue. It is IRRELEVANT that pain is brings about a conspicuous revenge for a conspicuous slight at the hands of men have no call top slight oneself or ones friends. What one should realize is that pain and anger are two separate virtue, and we do with them what we must in order to find what is morally justifiable. By practicing the virtue of anger, we can apply it in proper amounts as to protect ourselves and our loved ones from the moral unjust of the world.
TiggaGrant

Con

IT IS NOT NECESSARILY THE CASE, that pain and anger are two separate virtue, and we do with them what we must in order to find what is morally justifiable. This is because anger can't be defined without the input of pain. Anger is an emotion that provokes different judgement out of an individual. Emotions are feelings that change men as to affect their judgments, and that are also attended by pain or pleasure. ITS POSSIBLE THAT, By practicing the virtue of anger, we can apply it in proper amounts as to protect ourselves and our loved ones from the moral unjust of the world. But that doesn't verify that virtues are apprehended at birth. In the reading Aristotle states that intellectual virtue in the main owes both its birth and growth to teaching( for which it requires experience and time). This means that virtues cannot be upheld by someone who has never experienced anything on earth.
It is not the case that anger is a good moral trait because it conflicts the mind-state of the individual. According to Seneca, those free of anger are able to make better decisions because pain is not overwhelming them.
Debate Round No. 2
lukevara

Pro

ITS NOT NECESSARILY THE CASE that anger can not be defined without the input of pain. Pain - physical suffering or discomfort caused by illness or injury. Anger - a strong feeling of annoyance, displeasure, or hostility. These here are the definitions of both. Within those definitions neither are seen within each other. IT IS POSSIBLE that each of these virtues maybe loosely related to another, and it is quite the point that virtues can change the way men act. In fact, anger effects judgment heavily, but it can effect judgment in a positive and good fashion as well as morally motivate people to act. As to what you say about morality in terms of intellectualism, you are reading incorrectly. Aristotle claims there to be two parts that collectively make up a virtue, Those are moral virtue and moral intellectualism. More virtue is with us since birth and is then activated through practice and habit. Moral intellectualism is in turn learned from those who are able to teach it. Anger morally motivates through judgment, and that judgment can either be morally good or bad. So you are correct in saying that anger makes men judge, but in the judgment they are morally motivated in the first place.
TiggaGrant

Con

IT IS IRRELEVANT if men are morally motivated. This case that is being defended if anger is good morally motivation. The fact that you stated, "IT IS POSSIBLE that each of these virtues maybe loosely related to another, and it is quite the point that virtues can change the way men act." This is defeats your statement of anger being morally good to be not true. Also you failed to show how exactly anger is a anger at birth. Because of this your claim cannot be true. Anger is an act that is destructive to an individual and those that surround them. The mind state of the individual is not controllable because they are thinking in the train of thought they arent accustomed to. You have not demonstrated how anger has been evaluated in a good way by either Aristotle or Seneca which leads me to believe that one way doesn't exist. Yet again, I may not agree with your claim.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.