Is anger a sign of righteousness?

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?

I don’t think anger necessarily signifies righteousness, though nearly everyone is “righteously angry” when they get pissed off. Anger is evoked when you feel you’ve been wronged by someone/thing, so of course you’re going to think you’ve every right to be angry. Two people on opposites sides of the same argument will both be righteously angry.

I don’t think it’s possible to feel anger unless you’re convinced that you’re right about something, and therefore righteous. Is it?

However, I think it’s foolish to believe that just because you think you’ve a right to be angry, you actually do. There have been many times I’ve been righteously pissed, gotten up on my high horse and spouted off, only to realize later that I was, in fact, horribly wrong.

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.

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

All emotions, when attached in a reactive way like anger is to our experiences, indicate an insufficiently understood reaction, a lack of confidence in ourselves and our ideas. The person who truly believes himself, is confident and understands his ideas and his reasons for his confidence in them, will not ever get angry in a reactive way, certainly not in a way that is “self-righteous”. He might get instinctively angry if threatened with harm in some manner, and he can certainly get annoyed by other people, but self-righteous anger only exists as a substitute for a lack of self-confidence and self-understanding. All self-righteousness is merely psychological de-compensation and self-denial, and any anger that might originate from or as the means to this self-righteousness is the same.

Plainly, the significance of over-powering can just cause over-reaction. Whatever it is to the defended to defend in such way we only know that a built up of expiration for the defended subject really did not stand the chance for a sweeter response so that is what anger is for more definite defence by way for our logical turf to feel safer if not by means of joys without doubts. We can ever be lesser drastic about anger then hurdling the doubts causing a anger to a more ravishing and ill-tosterous ride of all along.

I don’t think that anger is necessarily paralleled by righteousness. I can see where the link might occur in some cases, such as protesters or spokespersons, where these people genuinely believe that they have to fight for a cause and are pushing for people to listen to them. However, what about all the other emotions that go alongside this? I think it is rare that a person will feel but one single emotion at a time.

If one is protesting against, for example animal rights, then one is not only feeling angry towards those who hurt animals in whatever various ways, they may also feel sympathy for the animal, empowered that they have the confidence to stand up and say something about it, happy when people agree with them etc. Conversely, it could also be the case that someone who feels righteous about something is not externally displaying anger - for example Amnesty International members handing out leaflets in the street are not necessarily angry but they have belief in a cause and a feeling of righteousness must surely accompany that?

Besides all that, sometimes people feel angry without necessarily feeling as though they are fighting a cause for feeling that way for a righteous reason. For example, if your flatmate consistently forgets to do his or her washing up, you might feel angry but are you angry at them or angry at the fact that the dishes have not been done? Is it fair to say in this instance that you necessarily feel wronged? There is not really a case for moral implications, so is it fair to say that you feel righteous about it? These terms are rather lofty for something as simple as a forgetful flatmate.

I reckon that anger is more likely to parallel self-righteousness if anything, since when put in a situation which peels back the layers and exposes the basic levels of humanity, such as raw emotion, humans tend to become rather selfish. However, as I have said I don’t think it is always going to be the case.

Also, coberst - really enjoyed reading your post =]

Anger? Take this eaxmple: when a child does something and I feel anger, that tells me that the child has done something wrong that needs correcting. It is behaving badly, in other words. What my feelings of anger are doing are alerting me to another person’s behaviour, child or adult. Similarly, if I feel flattered at another’s words or behaviour, then that person is doing something deliberately to flatter (think of the phrase ‘s/he only flatters to deceive’). My emotions, if I listen to them (rather than react to them) tell me what is going on around me, in much the same way as hearing or sight etc.

Anger is nothing to do with righteousness, I’d say, except when a person is displaying ‘righteous’ anger in an attempt to deceive!

Of course being angry doe not equal being righteous in a societal collective sense.

But you do have every right and business to be angry. It just does not make you righteous.

Anger is a perfectly natural and sane emotional response. You have every Truth-based and legitimate right and business to have feelings.

Yes, humans are often wrong, but that in no way means that you somehow “should” have refrained from being angry. Most likely, the real reason you “spouted off” is because you have denied and repressed anger, anxiety and frustrations that you cannot accept. You subconscious then allowed them to be vented for you, under a protective guise of some other issue. You used the other human being as a poison container to project these negatively perceived emotional states,

You are so wrong about that. It is nothing to do with the child, but what you have inside. See My child abuse essay, poison container essay on My website.

Feelings do not and cannot “do” anything.

To the contrary, you dont even know what you are doing, let alone what is going on around you.

When humans “discipline”, “correct” - assault - children, they are simply taking out their anger etc on a child because they are too cowardly to do so in other ways, or they currently have no other outlet. Of course, the child abuser simply denies this Truth to him or herself, by suggesting that the child somehow controlled them and “made them” do it. Another lie is that assaulting children is “for their own good”, where as it is just to abuse them.

I will divide anger in 2 categories, emotoinal and rational anger.

Emotional anger usually are caused by ignorence and stupidity why they can’t make a sound rational and logically conclusion, why they let their emotional side dominate.

Rational anger is where the opposit part will not give in to logic and reason, why the only option left is anger.

Why is it rational to be angry at irrationality? I can understand and sympathize with that kind of anger, but what makes it rational? There is no prior deliberation, no formulation of an argument, for this anger. It’s just already there and we have to choose how we will tend to it. There is definitely a reason for the anger – it can be explained – but an explanation is not a justification.

If a psycopath is a legal threat to your family and he will not adhere your reasoning, but instead with no logical reason shoot your family out of mere self satisfaction, then you should be reasonable for you to give into anger.

And what is the reasoning? Instinctively, I would be enraged. It’s not a question of demonstrating that it is reasonable to be angry; you are already angry before you have the chance to make any deliberations. Furthermore, on what basis is anger more rational than sadness in this scenario? On what basis is any pleasure or displeasure more rational than any other pleasure or displeasure?

What the heck are you talking about? I can’t make sense of this incoherent babble.

I will try to decipher my incoherent babble for you…

Do you agree that rationality refers to logical progression, such that a person acts rationally when his action is based on logical thinking?

I would say no, mainly because logic is an alagam of intelligence, knowledge, rationallity, critical thinking …etc. It isn’t just 1 isolated thing.

If you find some ignorent rainforest indian, who never seen or heard of modern civilisation, they’ll have an incredible poor logic and rationallity, because of their ignorence. It’s the lack of concepts which we take for granted that determins how well we reason and how great our intellect are …etc.

To think of logic as a mix of intelligence, knowledge, rationality and critical thinking is a misunderstanding.

Logic is a specific discipline that tries to determine the principles of correct reasoning. Fundamentally, logic imposes an order, a structure, on how we relate ideas. Logicians are after the right ways of coming to conclusions. In their language, it is validity they are after – the valid ways of progressing from one idea to another. Of course, valid reasoning (logic) can still lead to false conclusions, which is why logic is considered blind unless it is supplemented by true premises (knowledge). I would say that logic depends on knowledge to be useful and that a degree of intelligence is required by those who wish to grasp logic, but I disagree that logic is an amalgam of intelligence and knowledge…or rationality or critical thinking.

Rationality and critical thinking are just other terms for logical thinking, not separate things that add up to logical thinking/the discipline of logic.

Their poor logic does not necessarily stem from a lack of intelligence or general knowledge – it stems from not knowing one specific field of knowledge: logic. Extraordinary intelligence and general knowledge are neither sufficient nor necessary to excel as a logical thinker. Logic is a specialized kind of knowledge that we have inherited from past generations and which we continue to cultivate in our societies.

The principles of logic at their core are modeled on how human beings reason naturally. Logic as a discipline began with an examination of the basic logic that human beings were already using (e.g. identity & non-contradiction) and extended these basic principles in a rigorous and consistent manner.

If you still do not agree that rationality refers to logical thinking, then I am interested to know why.

Rationallity and Logic does not deal with counter intuitive problems that exceeds the psycopath barrier, where even very intelligent people only have a very limited plausible sphere as a barrier that they can’t break.

In the age of about 7 I knew that some day computers would help man do almost anything, the rest of the class laughed all but 1 very intelligent programmer as he found what I said very plausible. My teacher said “but computers can’t think”, at the time I didn’ thave sufficient words to describe that what computers could do to help man, didn’t require abstract thinking, fortunaly 1 year later in a science magazin it proved my claim, as Toyota had a 100% car manufacturing production plant, only because it took very long time to program, and even longer to erradicate bugs, they went back to only human production.

In a psycology class, 11 years prior 9/11 I correctly predicted that if a great manmade terror attack would occur, more survaliance would be implemented, where the rest of the class claimed the modern world would distance themselves from the DRR horrid Stasi scenario …how wrong and naive they were.

When you enter a big company with about 250 employees, with no real education and begins lecturing people who have been there for over 20 years, then you’r in for a lot of beating.
I got the worst task by writing the internal newsletter for employees.
The chiefs would deliver their contribution whenever they pleased, that was usually when they went home …which made the task take all from 8-22h. I reformed and didn’t take contributions after deadline and didn’t give a damn who it was, even if it was the vice boss. Made a template for people to write on with correct sized letters and correct types. Further all contributions should be deliverd on electronic form, not print.
The task ended up being an easy 2-3 hour task, and for the first time in 14 years the big boss got his proofing on time.
Many prior to me with the same task, was highly educated and very experienced, yet couldn’t solve it.

My initial claim still stands.

Not all anger is righteous anger, selfish people with double standards can get angry too.

HexHammer,

  1. (clearing up key words) – Why do you say “rationality and logic”? What is the difference between the two?

  2. (a minor point) – The study of logic gets complex. Even the basics are unintuitive for a lot of people of average or above-average intelligence. Smart, knowledgeable people shit all over modus ponens and modus tollens all the time. Have you ever studied predicate logic? Or basic propositional logic? Logic is a skill that takes practice.

  3. (I’m confused) – I have no idea why you have listed examples of accurate predictions you’ve made. Good job?

Finally,

  1. You said it “should be reasonable for [one] to give into anger” if a psychopath murders one’s family. Can you explain why this anger is rational instead of just stating it as a bare assumption? It is precisely that assumption I am calling into question.