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

Anger Can Be Good Moral Motivation

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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: 358 times Debate No: 42853
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 be deficiant, 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.
ForsakenLegion

Con

IT'S POSSIBLE THAT anger is something we have had in us from our birth but that does not justify it in any way on its usage. The feeling of anger is only something that will have someone succumb to an outcome that is negative and is not in its place anger.
Lukevera stats that "By practicing the right habits, an individual can tell the morally acceptable from morally unacceptable" but the fact is this does not give an excuse on how to use anger. Anger in itself is a self destructive method that is used in specific conditions that can not be measured by someone else for they are not in place to be able to pass judgement. If a good man sees his father being slain will not react the way he SHOULD which is usually vengeance. Anger is that which is a rushed emotion. Anger takes control over us and is not used in a "middle of deficient and excessive" way. It floods into our systems and is done irrationally. Anger is an impulse reaction set in motion by an impression of receiving a wrong from someone. These wrongs are not "emotions" rather they are something that is suffered by someone not giving it weight. Overcoming the main reason of an emotion is retribution which is in spite of anger something that has lost controlled with the involuntary motion of an emotion. If one has been harmed they think it right to seek vengeance.
Debate Round No. 1
lukevara

Pro

ITS NOT NECESSARILY THE CASE that anger can and will be a destructive force. As said by Aristotle himself, there are fine lines between being excessive and being deficient. Anger is a virtue in which every human is born with. But, by practicing the virtue of anger, one can abstain from destroying it by reaching a level of good temperament. The point that it is your duty to act on behalf of a hurt loved one is IRRELEVANT, what IS relevant is that that anger is an outlet in which you are able to combat the morally unjust. ITS POSSIBLE that anger can promote the careful planning and strategy that is needed in order to avenge a fallen or loved one, as well as seek justice when it is necessary. By tapping into the virtue known as anger when it has been properly balanced and trained, one can use the ability to anger himself and bolster a response that will work agains the forces of the morally unjust. This in fact is why anger is morally good.
ForsakenLegion

Con

IT'S POSSIBLE THAT anger will not be a destructive force but a fact is that just because it is within every human once they are born a restraint with good temperament will not assure that one knows what their actions will be due to the circumstances. A morally unjust act is of one thing but violence is not that answer to respond with just because someone wants to seek retribution does not mean that he is justified to carry it out for every situation has different variables. Virtue has no vice for anger since it suffices for itself so the use of anger is IRRELEVANT. If we reserve the middle domain of justice is that a positive thing? To take courage in itself and to have it stripped away slightly does not better it. So that means ITS NOT NECESSARILY THE CASE THAT having more anger would prove to be a positive thing. As Seneca stated "There is no good that becomes bad by increment". If anger would be a good thing then there would be no need for this debate so the fact at hand is it would be along with a moral sense of goodness. Aristotle states that some emotions are best used as arms but these same emotions are the ones that possess a solider. This would render him useless.
Debate Round No. 2
lukevara

Pro

ITS NOT NECESSARILY THE CASE that anger can always be a retaliatory response. You claim that anger brings violence, yes maybe in the examples given within the stoic readings, but what is to look at are the other applications of anger. We can be angered at someone else's perseverance over ourselves, yet we do not respond with violence but instead we respond by doing better than our opposing force. ITS POSSIBLE THAT by holding a mean of anger in which one lives with good temperament they can properly justify and call that of other standings unjust. By being in a middle state or "middle domain" of justice as you said, we allow ourselves to act accordingly and punish as it should be. As to addressing your soldier comment, it would deem the soldier IRRELEVANT if he were to evacuate himself of all emotion, let alone anger. Anger is a fuel, the Gatorade of the soul if you will. One will fight for his country due to anger. If you attempt to say that one will fight because of his duty, i say this, would the soldier not be angered if he could not fulfill his duty? Again, we come full circle to the basis of the virtue of anger (are we going in circles????), anger inspires and motivates those of the just to condemn the unjust. Whether it be a soldier fighting to save his land or a mother fighting for her child who has been discriminated against.
ForsakenLegion

Con

ITS NOT NECESSARILY THE CASE that anger is used always in a retaliatory response but it is most definitely the case that it is much easier to exclude these forces than trying to govern something that clouds judgement. Having a good moral temperament does not prevent anger taking control for you are just mentioning reasoning that is only included something one has experienced before. Reasoning within itself entrusted with control is only powerful for as long it remains from external impulses such as anger. ITS POSSIBLE THAT one can try to hold anger but one can only see the world "HOLD" there. There is no proper control over unless it is a program in a computer and even that can be compromised, so imagine a person who is experiencing different emotions on top of the anger. The soldier would be deemed IRRELEVANT if he did devoid himself of all emotions but he is there for his duty and he knows what that entails. There will be wins and losses and those are the objects that are out of his control. His duty is only that, a task. Once he let's anger take hold of him and entrust it with him to guide him to victory would be foolish. Anger is only a mirage of a thought to be emotion that gives us the mindset that we have power but takes us down with a force that can not be reversed. Once anger has taken us off course the return to safety is difficult and one that could have been avoided altogether if it was cut off when the impulse was felt in the beginning.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.