"Anger can be a good moral motivation"

(1.) Anger must always be accompanied by certain pleasure, which is derived from the thoughts of seeking revenge for what caused the anger in the first place. This helps to get what needs to be done, done.(86.2.4) (2.) One can grow angry if another man"s goals interfere with or oppose your own, this will drive you to become better through the use of anger as fuel.(92.3.1) (3.) Anger can show us what exactly it is that we are good at, anger can flush out the things and activities that do not profit yourself, and replace them with productive activities.(93.2.1) Therefore, Anger is a good thing, according to Aristotle, it can be viewed as a flavor of life, or a tool that can be used in order to harness its drive and energy. Report this Argument cprince Con Seneca doesn"t believe that anger can be a good basis for moral motivation for the following reasons: 1)Virtues are intrinsically good on their own. Vices, especially negative ones, aren"t necessary. 2)Anger is just courage with a lowercase "c". 3)The motivation that anger is described as is actually honor and duty. 4)Anger is something that is uncontrollable and willfully disobedient. The best way to deal with anger is to not allow it to fester and swell, for then it is most dangerous and least likely to be surmounted. Seneca"s argument underlines the duplicity in anger. Anger though claimed to be the fire that ignites courage is actually perceived to be more of a charlatan from Seneca"s point of view. Seneca claims that a virtue is suffice on its own. Any alteration made to this, possesses qualities and characteristics that anger lacks such as precision and tranquility. A virtue is given its name for its intrinsically good nature and positive disposition. It would be paradoxical to claim that something as unstable and irrational as anger is sufficient to satisfy as its parallel. Furthermore, Seneca claims that the "anger" we feel in the case of loved ones being wronged is actually our sense of duty that manifests. We act as we see fit. Your mother is being attacked. You defend your mother. In the event that you fail, you avenging your mother"s death is just you seeking your own justice. Your devotion to the woman that brought you into the world should be enough of a stimulus for revenge. To just simply be angered about the death is weak, especially if no defense was put up or an attempt to seek justice after the fact. The difference between anger and devotion is that one is calculated and done in the right setting, for the right reasons against the right person as opposed to anger which is just an impulse, thought justified but yields no intended purpose. Lastly, the defense built around the idea that anger provides the extra enthusiasm necessary for a fight is crazy. It provides enthusiasm, but to what end? The result of fighting angry works against you, blinding you with emotion, crippling your rationality and stripping you down to your most vulnerable state. Anger is in the league of liquid courage, Frenzy, Lunacy and anything else that induces or illicit reactions that you weren"t brave enough to have to begin with. Being angry, drunk, frenzied and crazed all lead down the same path. Is anger then really that effective to your cause? Report this Argument Debate Round No. 1 JensMeister Pro Anger is indeed courage with a lower case "c", but what it is does not matter because it still completes the task at hand. If two separate ways of yielding the same result, are they not two separate but equal ways of accomplishing the same goal? What makes lower case c courage better or more honorable then anger that produces the same reult? Anger arises in situations where it is needed, situations where courage is hard to find, which makes it a fitting substitute.