[coberst]

Is anger a sign of righteousness?

Webster informs us that righteous is “acting in accord with divine or moral law”.

We often see US citizens, in our streets and byways, expressing their anger at certain actions taken by our government. On occasion this anger is directed at Big Bankers or some other group but generally it is directed at some action of government institutions.

“I’m mad and I won’t take it anymore” seems to be the general attitude often displayed by these demonstrators. I have concluded that most people identify the connection of anger to an argument signifies the righteousness of the argument and the person making the argument. Perhaps this is because anger often accompanies the pronouncements of preachers, priests, imams, rabies, and talk show hosts.

Do you think that anger necessarily signifies righteousness?

Do you think that anger signifies righteousness; but only for those protests for which you agree?

[lawcat]

Depends. Anger is an emotion, and is therefore subjective in source. Righteous is what's fair. So anger can be fair, or righteous. Something is fair if it comports with expectations. So sometimes we can say: that man is right to be angry. That means that man's anger comports with our expectations. In other words, we expect the man to be angry under those circumstances. His anger is righteous because it is fair to be angry. But sometimes that's not the case. Sometime a man is not right to be angry. So, it all comes down to expectations.

[coberst]

Emotions equal instinct. First, there is emotion, then comes feeling, then comes consciousness of feeling.

What are the emotions? The primary emotions are happiness, sadness, fear, anger, surprise and disgust. The secondary or social emotions are such things as pride, jealousy, embarrassment, and guilt. Damasio considers the background emotions are well-being or malaise, and calm or tension. The label of emotion has also been attached to drives and motivations and to states of pain and pleasure.

Antonio Damasio, Distinguished Professor and Head of the Department of Neurology at the University of Iowa College of Medicine, testifies in his book “The Feelings of What Happens” that the biological process of feelings begins with a ‘state of emotion’, which can be triggered unconsciously and is followed by ‘a state of feeling’, which can be presented nonconsciously; this nonconscious state can then become ‘a state of feeling made conscious’.

”Emotions are about the life of an organism, its body to be precise, and their role is to assist the organism in maintaining life…emotions are biologically determined processes, depending upon innately set brain devices, laid down by long evolutionary history…The devices that produce emotions…are part of a set of structures that both regulate and represent body states…All devices can be engaged automatically, without conscious deliberation…The variety of the emotional responses is responsible for profound changes in both the body landscape and the brain landscape. The collection of these changes constitutes the substrate for the neural patterns which eventually become feelings of emotion.”

The biological function of emotions is to produce an automatic action in certain situations and to regulate the internal processes so that the creature is able to support the action dictated by the situation. The biological purpose of emotions are clear, they are not a luxury but a necessity for survival.

“Emotions are inseparable from the idea of reward and punishment, pleasure or pain, of approach or withdrawal, of personal advantage or disadvantage. Inevitably, emotions are inseparable from the idea of good and evil.”

Emotions result from stimulation of the senses from outside the body sources and also from stimulations from remembered situations. Evolution has provided us with emotional responses from certain types of inducers put these innate responses are often modified by our culture.

“It is through feelings, which are inwardly directed and private, that emotions, which are outwardly directed and public, begin their impact on the mind; but the full and lasting impact of feelings requires consciousness, because only along with the advent of a sense of self do feelings become known to the individual having them.”

First, there is emotion, then comes feeling, then comes consciousness of feeling. There is no evidence that we are conscious of all our feelings, in fact evidence indicates that we are not conscious of all feelings.

Human emotion and feeling pivot on consciousness; this fact has not been generally recognized prior to Damasio’s research. Emotion has probably evolved long before consciousness and surfaces in many of us when caused by inducers we often do not recognize consciously.

The powerful contrast between emotion and feeling is used by the author in his search for a comprehension of consciousness. It is a neurological fact, states the author, that when consciousness is suspended then emotion is likewise usually suspended. This observed human characteristic led Damasio to suspect that even though emotion and consciousness are different phenomenon that there must be an important connection between the two.

Damasio proposes “that the term feeling should be reserve for the private, mental experience of an emotion, while the term emotion should be used to designate the collection of responses, many of which are publicly observable.” This means that while we can observe our own private feelings we cannot observe these same feelings in others.

Empirical evidence indicates that we need not be conscious of emotional inducers nor can we control emotions willfully. We can, however, control the entertainment of an emotional inducer even though we cannot control the emotion induced.

I was raised as a Catholic and taught by the nuns that “impure thoughts” were a sin only if we “entertained” bad thoughts after an inducer caused an emotion that we felt, i.e. God would not punish us for the first impure thought but He would punish us for dwelling upon the impure thought. If that is not sufficient verification of the theory derived from Damasio’s empirical evidence, what is?

In a typical emotion, parts of the brain sends forth messages to other parts of the body, some of these messages travel via the blood stream and some via the body’s nerve system. These neural and chemical messages results in a global change in the organism. The brain itself is just as radically changed. But, before the brain becomes conscious of this matter, before the emotion becomes known, two additional steps must occur. The first is feeling, i.e. an imaging of the bodily changes, followed by a ‘core consciousness’ to the entire set of phenomena. “Knowing an emotion—feeling a feeling—only occurs at this point.”

Quotes from The Feelings of What Happens by Antonio Damasio

[Moontanman]

I can remember people having so much righteous anger over black people being able to eat in the same restaurant or drink out of the same water fountain resulting in the arbitrary deaths of black people it's difficult to say that righteous anger is anything other than anger that supports your personal world view. Anytime any one says they have righteous anger red flags go up in my head immediately.

[Eclogite]

Moontanman said:

Anytime any one says they have righteous anger red flags go up in my head immediately.

Does it make you angry?

[Moontanman]

Eclogite said:

Does it make you angry?

Well yes it does and righteously so

[coberst]

Anger is an emotion.

I once took a college course in acting. Acting 101 informs me that an actor is more effective it s/he makes the motions associated with an emotion than if that actor tries to first create the feeling and then the action will follow.

[paigetheoracle]

coberst said:

Is anger a sign of righteousness?

Webster informs us that righteous is “acting in accord with divine or moral law”.

We often see US citizens, in our streets and byways, expressing their anger at certain actions taken by our government. On occasion this anger is directed at Big Bankers or some other group but generally it is directed at some action of government institutions.

“I’m mad and I won’t take it anymore” seems to be the general attitude often displayed by these demonstrators. I have concluded that most people identify the connection of anger to an argument signifies the righteousness of the argument and the person making the argument. Perhaps this is because anger often accompanies the pronouncements of preachers, priests, imams, rabies, and talk show hosts.

Do you think that anger necessarily signifies righteousness?

Do you think that anger signifies righteousness; but only for those protests for which you agree?

No. I think it signifies an opinion and self-interest plus maybe misunderstanding at times. There is no inherent 'right' in my opinion, only the 'belief' that there is.

[Kriminal99]

It's a direct side effect of our biology IMO, and not because of seeing people on tv doing it.

IMO anger requires an element of perceived empowerment (not directly righteousness). So if you were a giant wolf with great fighting skills, you would be angry easily just because you thought you were the biggest baddest wolf around and nobody better mess with you.

But people are more intelligent and numbers and cleverness give more power than size. The power of numbers is afforded to the person who is "in the right" because their argument would most benefit the masses and therefore theoretically be supported by the masses.

Thus at best it denotes that the angry person BELIEVES they are right. At worst it denotes someone who just things they are the big bad wolf, and have never had any experience with the police or something similar.

In the case where the person believes they are right, it might just be because they don't know any better. However that still makes them better than someone who doesn't believe what they are saying because they are manipulative or a liar.

[Jman8564]

Kriminal99, on 13 April 2010 - 06:57 AM, said:

Thus at best it denotes that the angry person BELIEVES they are right. At worst it denotes someone who just things they are the big bad wolf, and have never had any experience with the police or something similar.

To me it seems that to even answer this question you would have to accept the western religious standard of moral dualism: right and wrong, or good and evil, and consequently it must be possible for an individual to express a righteous anger towards the inequities of man. There must exist higher purposes over which we may have an emotional response.

What I do is suppose that there is both good and evil in the world, and that both good and evil people are capable of anger.

So I would then ask "could an evil man's anger possibly be in accordance with divine or moral law"?

I would assume that it couldn't, as the quality of being evil simply means that the individual's intentions and actions are already set against divine / moral law.

So the answer for me would be no, anger is not necessarily a sign of righteousness.

[Vox]

coberst, on 24 March 2010 - 10:11 AM, said:

Is anger a sign of righteousness?


Webster informs us that righteous is “acting in accord with divine or moral law”.

What is this "divine or moral law", could you explain? Where is it?

[Vox]

Kriminal99, on 13 April 2010 - 06:57 AM, said:

IMO anger requires an element of perceived empowerment (not directly righteousness). So if you were a giant wolf with great fighting skills, you would be angry easily just because you thought you were the biggest baddest wolf around and nobody better mess with you.

I`ll disagree. Anger is formed out of fear. If you have a perceived empowerment your level of anger would be smaller compared to the opposite scenario

[Rade]

Who more righteous than Jesus---you see how angry he got at Temple with bankers exchanging money. I think all it means is that the righteous can become angry when they see something not "right".

Hitler was angry many hours of his life based on his hate of certain ethnic people. I find nothing righteous that derived from his anger vis-a-vis the "final solution" he put into motion.

[CraigD]

Anger, morality, and fear

coberst, on 24 March 2010 - 10:11 AM, said:

Is anger a sign of righteousness?

Depending on its context, the feeling and expression of anger may be a demonstration of moral rectitude (righteousness).

coberst, on 24 March 2010 - 10:11 AM, said:

Do you think that anger necessarily signifies righteousness?

No.

Although precisely how to act righteously is intensely debated – differences in religion are fundamentally reflected in their differing definitions of righteous behavior – the concept of rectitude is ancient and uncontroversial. It refers to intentionally living in accord with ones chosen morals.

If your morals dictate that you should feel and demonstrate anger in some situations – for example, when confronting people who don’t share your morals, or share them but unrighteously don’t act in accordance with them – then feeling and showing anger demonstrated (signifies) your righteousness. If your morals dictate that you should feel calm compassion in such situations, then feeling and showing anger demonstrates that you are not acting righteously.

Most modern religious favor calm and compassion over anger. This difference is arguably the essential difference between the Old and New Covenants of the Judeo-Christian religious traditions – consider these contrasting KJV Bible passages dictating moral behavior in a situation where your have been severely offended:

Deuteronomy 21:18-21:
If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:
Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.
And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

Matthew 18:21-22:
Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times?
Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven.

Other religions dictate similarly that moral rectitude is best demonstrated by calm, forgivness, and compassion, not anger. Traditions such as Buddhism train their adherents to, ultimately, feel anger in no situation.

Another technique common in Buddhism is to recognize that anger is, as a rule, an expression not of confidence and strength, but of fear. Thus, when confronted by an angry person, it’s better to understand and seek to quell their fear than to seek to intimidate and overpower them, because angry people already feel intimidated and overpowered, despite their facade of fearlessness and strength. Thus, I disagree with the statement (and agree with Vox's reply to it)

Kriminal99, on 13 April 2010 - 06:57 AM, said:

IMO anger requires an element of perceived empowerment (not directly righteousness). So if you were a giant wolf with great fighting skills, you would be angry easily just because you thought you were the biggest baddest wolf around and nobody better mess with you.

IMO, precisely the opposite it usually true. When you are (or believe yourself to be) the biggest, baddest human wolf in the room, you’ve no need for anger (AKA a “threatening display”) – you just take what you want, confident that none of the lesser wolves dare challenge you. It’s when you’re the little (or outnumbered) wolf that you must get your hackles up and snarl, sending the message “You may win a fight with me, but I’ll hurt you enough that you’ll wish you hadn’t.” This applies, I think, not only to individuals, but to nations: it is weak nations believing themselves in peril of being calmly crushed by their strong neighbors, or even strong nations that feel threatened (eg: the US following the 11 September 2001 attacks), not strong nations that believe themselves unassailable, that act angrily and aggressively.

[HydrogenBond]

Anger is more of a defensive mechanism. For example, the mother animal protecting her young will get quite angry to scare away the predator. The predictor is not angry but is trying to get a quick meal. If you watch lions hunting, they are not angry but are in a Zen state of mind. If you try to invade the lion's territory, he will get quite angry.

Self righteous anger is a type of defensiveness. One may be defending their ideas and beliefs from what appears to an invasion of their space or to protect their young. For example, say someone was not into smoking cigarettes. The smoker is enjoying themselves, with no external harm in mind. The anti-smoker might get angry with self righteous anger since they try to protect their health based on what they have been taught to believe. This anger reaction did not appear until their belief system changed.

Ex-smokers can often be the worse since their new belief system does not reflect smoking (territory). But sometimes they also secretly want to smoke again (urges are there) and to need to protect (their young state of mind) from this urge. They may get even more angry defensive.