Aristotle sets out to prove that anger can indeed be a good moral catalyst for these following reasons:
1)Practicing and exercising what is moral is virtuous which is said to be the mark of a good man.
2)In order to be virtuous, one must be good/even tempered.
3)To be good/even tempered one, an extent of anger has to be dispensed in order for one to do what is right. For that which is wrong must anger someone with a good moral compass
4)In order to stand up to what is wrong, a level of courage is necessary. Aristotle feels that anger is what fuels courage.
5)With that said anger isn"t just a good moral motivation, but can very well be a necessary condition.
The main flaw of your argument rests in the mere assumption that a necessary relationship exists between anger and courage. There exist at least one other possibility, in which courage is not fueled by anger, but love. Imagine a loved one being exposed to a life-threatening situation. And assume that in order for you to stand up to what is wrong - that is, your loved one's life being threatened - your own life has to come under some threat. In this particular case, it is safe to assume that you would fear for your life, because it is a natural instinct of every living creature to fear when its life is being threatened. In such case, your love for the other person must be greater than any other emotion in order for you to build up the courage to place your own life under threat in order to save theirs. Anger might be present, but it is not a sufficient condition for one to place his or her own life under threat in order to save another's, if love for that particular individual isn't also present, and moreover, if it isn't the primary emotion which drives our actions, you wouldn't bother undertaking the action of threatening your own life in order to save theirs.
My argument didn't state that anger was the only motivation for a moral cause, it just states that it is capable of being a good moral stimulus in the event that it is needed. there is not doubt that love is a strong force however hates Is it equal and opposite counterpart which proves that it is just as capable as love to fuel courage. anger may not be a sufficient condition alone for saving someone at the expense of your life, however courage isn't just needed to save lives.
Okay. I accept your notion that anger isn't the only motivation for a good moral action, but that is entirely irrelevant to your main conclusion, which is, "Anger can a good moral motivation." You have provided no logical or tangible proof whatsoever that this is the case by stating that hate is also capable of fueling courage, and by stating that courage isn't the only virtue needed to save lives. Both points are valid, but they are irrelevant to your argument.
It is not irrelevant to the notion that anger can be a good moral motivation. I was stating that anger is capable of executing what is necessary to motivate courage. In some cases hate is what fuels our anger to begin with. In this case of courage not just being needed to save lives, what was meant is that there are other reason to be courageous where anger would be suffice to achieve the intended purpose. Anger though, expressive enables us to be our most vulnerable and at the same time our strongest for it releases us from our inhibitions which limit us most of the time from being courageous to begin with
Let's assume that there exists a necessary condition between anger and courage, as you have stated. Courage is the ability to overcome and face our fears. You have provided no proof that overcoming and facing our fears will lead to certain actions which will be deemed as morally good.
I need not provide proof that overcoming our fears and being courageous will lead to certain actions deemed morally good. the argument here is whether anger can fuel courage. the point is that anger can be used for a positive cause. If we are able to keep our anger in check which is mastered through the act of being virtuous than we can harness that energy to be courageous.
The argument here is whether anger can lead to morally good actions, not, "whether anger can fuel courage". Okay, let's say that you are right and that keeping anger in check is, "mastered through the act of being virtuous than we can harness that energy to be courageous." What you are saying is that (anger ---> courage), which I agreed with previously. This still does not establish that (anger ---> good moral motivation).