Anger can be a good moral motivation
Debate Rounds (3)
1) Virtue can be either intellectual or moral in nature, with the intellectual being developed through teaching, requiring experience and time, and the moral being developed through habit.
2) Some men become self-restrained while others become irascible due to their tendency to behave in either manner; these characteristics become, through habit, part of each mans moral virtue.
3) The kinds of activities we undertake define our character, and thus our virtues, by encouraging us towards one kind of behavior or another.
4) Virtues are destroyed by excess and defect and are preserved by the mean.
5) The desirable amount of anger is the mean between too much anger and too little anger and is considered good-tempered.
6) The good-tempered man is praised because he tends to be unperturbed and not led by passion but is angry in the way the rule dictates.
7) Those who are not angry at things they should be angry at are thought to be fools unlikely to defend themselves.
8) Excessive anger has several manifestations, the worst being called bad-tempered which cannot be appeased until they inflict vengeance or punishment.
9) We idealize good temper and oppose excess more strongly than we oppose deficiency since bad tempered people are worse to live with.
10) It is difficult to determine acceptable factors for one's anger, which can only be decided on the particular facts and on perception.
11) Anger is found to be good when a praiseworthy middle ground has been found.
Anger is not useful because once you find the middle ground, which you consider to be ideal, it is no longer a form of anger. If it listens to reason and follows where led, it is no longer anger, the hallmark of which is willful disobedience. One premise in your argument addresses that excessive anger has several manifestations. This is not the case because once anger has developed into a positive form, it is no longer anger.
In addition, virtue needs no other vice to assist it, it is sufficient in itself. I can elaborate about that longer later.
If we base our understanding of anger on Aristotle, anger is a natural human response. He believes that moral virtues are developed through habit. If we have the right kind of habits, our anger will tell us what is morally right and morally wrong. Through developing habits that are not contrary to nature, we discover what is right and wrong. When we understand these rights and wrongs, we develop a tendency to behave in certain ways. Finding and keeping to a middle ground in all virtues, but especially when angry, allows us to understand what is acceptable behavior and what is not.
Our anger informs us as to how we should respond to the behavior of others.
Anger can motivate us to take action we find to be morally wrong, forcing us to take a side in a moral issue.
Thus, anger can be a good moral motivation by guiding our understanding of what is and is not moral.
Moreover, some things are in our power, but after time they forcefully take control of us. If the mind throws itself into anger, or other affections, it is in the same way not allowed to restrain the impulse. The anger is bound to be swept along and driven downwards by its own weight. In this way, anger is inconsistent and it would be hard to find a middle ground.
Anger may transform into other things when it listens to reason and becomes controllable but that does not mean it does not assist in forming one's moral stance. Striking a middle ground and being good-tempered, according to Aristotle, implies that one has found a way to respond with anger justifiably and with good reason. These anger responses form and then become a result of our judgment of what is morally right or wrong. If you do not respond with any anger to a situation that clearly has a moral right and a moral wrong, you may be considered to be a fool because you have not indicated that you comprehend what is happening.
Anger can be help us decide what is right and what is wrong and thus to what we must respond. If it transforms after that decision has no bearing on its capacity to be a moral motivator.
On the other hand, reason is a better moral motivation. Reason wishes to pass fair judgment while anger wishes the judgment which it has already passed to seem far. Anger is often misguided by irrelevant trifles, whereas reason considers nothing but the issue. It is quite foolish that one would find anger useful for moral motivation when it produces bad temper, something unstable, untrustworthy, and unsound in seeking protection. Anger cannot help us decide what is right and wrong because it has all of the above attributes. It acts as a barrier in which we are unable to have the capacity to make proper moral decisions.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.