IT"S POSSIBLE THAT,
1)Violence is morally good.
2)Anger provokes pain.
3)A good temperate man avoids delights and good temperate stands against pain.
4)According to Seneca anger can be used for good actions.
5)Virtues need no vice.
6)Therefore anger can be used positively if it is monitored.
Emotions are all those feelings that so change men as to affect their judgments, and that are also attended by pain or pleasure. Anger is 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. Both Seneca and Aristotle state that anger does provoke an outcome from an individual. Aristotle believes it is violence or a good tempered man. Seneca states that anger either provokes bravery or cowardly actions from an individual. Both believe the need of anger is necessary.
i am completely against this , anger cannot be morally motivating, for the simple fact that the only thing it can motivate you to do is something that is bad or commit some sort of violence act against another . for example in order for one to be mad they must understand the three components of anger and i highly doubt that anyone understands thes components for us to consider it morally good .
Yes I agree you must know the three components in order to understand anger. Those being the state of mind of angry people is, who the people are with whom they usually get angry, and on what grounds they get angry with them. IT'S POSSIBLE THAT, the US soldiers of our country demonstrate good morally motivation from anger. They are angered by the other countries who attempt to harm those who they love. In response they fight back to defend their loved ones from being harmed. Yes their mind state has altered from calm to furious, yes they are getting angry because harm is being directed toward their family, and lastly they get anger with the individual attempting harm and not at their family members. This example is one used by Seneca who state that if we control our anger and use it to ignite our bravery then anger is a good moral motivation to have.
yes but according to theV ery same reading in which you read and agree too anger causes you to feel pity 91.2 and pity is defined as a feeling of pain at an APPARENT EVIL , SO WHATS SOO GOOD ABOUT THAT . IT'S EVEN CONSIDERED TO BE DESTRUCTIVE AND EVIL.
IT'S POSSIBLE THAT, pity is defined as a feeling of pain at an APPARENT EVIL. But pain and anger does not correlate as Seneca stated. You must look at both words individually. Anger is A strong feeling of displeasure or hostility. Pain is An unpleasant sensation occurring in varying degrees of severity as a consequence of injury, disease, or emotional disorder. Yes both does inflict an emotion but both are two separate actions. At the end of the day anger is a good moral motivation because it allows someone to ignite their bravery and fight for a purpose. If anger did not exist IT'S POSSIBLE THAT, many would not have the motivation needs to stand up for a cause.
SO BASICALLY WHAT YOUR'RE TELLING ME IS IF SOMEONE WAS TO THROW SOMETHING AT YOU IN THIS CLASS ROOM AND YOU GET ANGRY YOU WOULD HAVE A FEELING OF DOING SOMETHING THAT'S MORALLY MOTIVATING. ARISTOLE ALSO .STATED THAT AT SOME POINT RIGHT ACTION CEASES AND WRONG BEGINS, SO CLEARLY BEING ANGRY CAN'T BE SO RIGHT ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU WANT TO MENTION SOLDIER IN YOUR PREVIOUS ARGUMENT , KEEP IN MIND THAT THE U.S SOLDIERS ARE NOT MAD THEY ARE JUST DOING THEIR job