The Instigator
mgeorge3595
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
mendes36
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: 240 times Debate No: 42846
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

mgeorge3595

Pro

According to Aristotle anger is a good thing as long as it is for the right things, people, etc. Lets say that an overweight person becomes angry whenever they look into the mirror because he or she is fat. They understand that it may be a problem for their health and may potentially have to deal with high cholesterol, diabetes, etc. So the anger they have can be used as a motivation to get healthy by eating right and losing weight by exercising. In this scenario, anger can be a good moral motivation.
mendes36

Con

IT IS NOT NECESSARILY THE CASE THAT over weight people get angry the right way because in some cases people who believe there overweight will do unhealthy things to lose weight and some will also commit suicide. So on certain matters there is more bad then good because there are so many bad ways to lose weight and to escape the over weightiness. So in this case it is kind of tough for me to agree with you.
Also its like this case that a girl in Florida jumped to her death because she was getting picked on. Instead of using anger in a positive way to overcome the bullies she used that anger to escape the bullies permanently. So in this case anger is viewed as a uncontrollable emotion because no one can control it. If anger can be controlled it should be renamed because it is viewed as something that cannot be controlled. So once someone has omitted that they can control it it is not anger. There fore anger can only bring about negative outcomes because it is uncontrollable.
Debate Round No. 1
mgeorge3595

Pro

IT IS NOT NECESSARILY THE CASE THAT this girl in Florida had actually killed herself because she was angry that she was overweight. No one will know except for that girl for why she committed suicide. She may have had some other problems in her life that she could not have deal with maturely enough.

If people don't do anything regardless of bad or good ways to lose weight, its a lose-lose situation for them. Since they are overweight they have to probably take pills for cholesterol or high blood sugar just to keep it down. This costs a lot of money if they take it on a daily basis. Wouldn't someone rather try to lose weight so they can avoid all of these additional expenses. Cause the bill will continuously add up and there will be future problems/complications they may have to deal with for the rest of their lives.
mendes36

Con

That is IRRELEVANT because the case proves that the reason to why she killed herself was because she couldn't overcome bullying by anger. She even left a note stating why she killed herself and also there was evidence found that backed up this statement as well. Such as Facebook posts and text messages that were found. So when it comes to this case anger was not a good moral motivator because it motivated her to do the wrong thing by taking a permanent way out of the situation and that was by death.
Another case that had the same outcome was America how they went into ware with Iraq. They went to war out of anger to avenge the lives the terrorists took for bombing 9/11. The result out of there anger put us millions and trillions in debt and it made the economy horrible. IF the U.S didnt act on such anger our society would of been a better one because we would have money and a better economy. So in these two cases are evidence that proves anger is not and will not be a good moral motivator.
Debate Round No. 2
mgeorge3595

Pro

IT IS NOT NECESSARILY THE CASE THAT the U.S. went to war with Iraq to avenge the victims death's for 9/11. The U.S. invaded Iraq because it was believed by the Bush Administration that there were weapons of mass destruction. It was later shown that there was no weapons of mass destruction. So in order to cover up their "mess" the U.S. decided to shift their attention to bringing democracy to Iraq which proved to be fatal.

The U.S. did not act out of anger but rather wanting to protect the United States from further attacks. The government is suppose to protect the people. No emotions had to do with the invasion of Iraq other than making sure that the United States was out of harm's way.
mendes36

Con

But it is IRRELEVANT that the 9/11 bombings were not the ignition of the war because they were. IT was that little push they needed so that they can have reasons to attack Iraq. Either way there decision resulted in all negative outcomes every way possible. Due to the fact that we are in debt to other countries and our economy is low.
They did act out of anger because there are a lot of ways they could've avoided it. They could have spoke to Iraq demanding a treaty or any other way to put an end to the war without resulting the U.S to be effective negatively in any way possible. So for you to say that the U.S did not act out of anger is completely irrelevant because they had a lot of other options they could have taken so that they can avoid warfare. The emotion that had to do with the invasion of Iraq was strictly anger because it resulted in unexpected consequences and that is what anger leads to that is why anger defies all emotions.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.