Anger and Morality

Anger and Morality

Anger is inseparable from morality: we are naturally angry at what is unjust, unfair, blameworthy, evil. Jesus was angry at the money lenders and pharisees. There is no point in denying it. Emotivism used to say that moral judgement is all about boo and hurrah, but it should have said that moral disapproval is anger and moral approval admiration. You boo a weak artistic performance not a heinous act. A moral person is an angry person, on the assumption of immorality in the world. Indeed, there are few things that make one angrier than unethical actions or people. Not all anger has moral content, to be sure, but most of it does (animals are seldom angry). Anger assigns blame. A person without anger is hardly a moral being at all, even if brimming with love. What does this tell us about the moral life? First, it tells us that morality is bound up with judgment: you have to judge what to be angry about. Some people have poor judgment—they are angry at the wrong things. Anger must be appropriately educated. As the ancients would say, right anger is a form of wisdom. Second, and more disturbing, anger is not a nice emotion to have: it is unpleasant, corrosive, and dangerous. It feels bad; it eats into the soul; and it can lead to violent acts. Anger is hard to handle, causing much immoral action. So, moral emotion, in the form of anger, itself has moral consequences, which can be worse than what it is anger about. The angry man might kill a man who disrespects him. This approaches paradox: morality requires anger, but anger is close to immorality. Anger at the wrongdoing of others can easily lead to further wrongdoing, sometimes serious. Mass murderers are often angry, justifiably, at the wrongdoing of others. Anger is a combustible emotion (perhaps this is partly why Kant distrusted emotion as part of moral psychology). Anger can motivate right action, but it can also trigger wrong action. It can be argued that we would be better off without it. But moral judgment without anger is a pale and insipid thing, and not psychologically realistic. Being serenely detached in the face of cruelty is not a virtue. Righteous anger is proper and correct. But it has to be properly regulated, wisely arrived at. Thus, there is a problem at the heart of our moral psychology: we need anger, but we must beware of its pitfalls. Good people are centers of anger, but the anger must be good anger. And it is also necessary that the anger not be too intense or preoccupying—or else it will corrode the soul. This is the problem of moral anger.