Great Thinkers: The Power (and Risks) of Anger

Introduction: Debated Since Ancient Times

Anger is a powerful force, pushing us to act with sometimes disastrous results. But can it be channeled toward more positive ends? Great Thinkers have debated this since ancient times. We’ll look at some of their arguments on whether anger can or cannot be called for. We’ll also cover some of their advice on how to keep anger from getting the best of you.

Seneca: Anger Is Uncontrollable

We’ll start with arguments against anger—Great Thinkers who believe anger is always harmful. According to these thinkers, anger only leads people to violence and should never factor into decision-making. The first Great Thinker we’ll cover is the ancient Roman philosopher Lucius Annaeus Seneca and his work On Anger.

Seneca defines anger as the desire for revenge when you feel like you’ve been unfairly harmed. He explains that anger is an irrational passion that impulsively pushes us toward violence and destruction. Seneca argues that only dispassionate reason can guide us to make the right decisions, meaning anger will always lead us astray. According to Seneca’s definition, there’s no such thing as moderate or controlled anger that we can use as motivation to fight injustice or do what’s right. He believes anger is inherently uncontrollable, so if you’re calm enough to make measured decisions, that’s because your rational self is in control and suppressing your anger.

Anger isn’t even appropriate in situations where violence seems like the rational course, because it causes us to lose control, overreact, use disproportionate force, or hurt people who didn’t intend to harm us at all. For example, a stranger might randomly shove John. John becomes angry, gets up, and punches the stranger, only to realize the stranger was pushing him out of the way of an oncoming car. Had John taken a moment to calm down, he would’ve realized he hadn’t been harmed and there was no need for revenge.

In the same work, Seneca provides advice on preventing and managing anger. He recommends you learn what makes you angry and the signs that you’re getting angry so you know when to get away from an upsetting topic or situation. If you start feeling angry, he says you should focus on the feeling of anger itself and remind yourself that it isn’t useful and won’t make anything better. By judging the emotion of anger itself and not focusing on whatever’s making you angry, you’ll have an easier time convincing yourself to calm down.

Nussbaum: Anger Isn’t Productive

Contemporary American philosopher Martha Nussbaum (Anger and Forgiveness) agrees with Seneca that anger is always harmful, though she takes a different approach to explain why. Similar to Seneca’s definition, she describes anger as an emotional response to the belief that you or someone you care about has been harmed. This response often goes along with a desire for payback against whoever caused the harm.

Nussbaum focuses her critique of anger on the desire for payback. She argues that seeking revenge isn’t productive because it only creates more harm instead of addressing the original harm. Since revenge has no practical benefits, it can only be based on what Nussbaum calls “cosmic thinking”: The idea that revenge somehow balances out the cosmic scales and makes things even. She rejects the idea that satisfying cosmic thinking justifies causing more people more harm. For example, if Lina insults her coworker Alan, he might get angry and want to insult her back. But doing so won’t make Lina’s insult hurt less. Instead, it’ll just fulfill some vague sense of “getting even” while escalating the situation and hurting Lina.

Instead of channeling anger into the desire for revenge, Nussbaum explains that we must embrace “transition-anger.” This involves calming yourself down and seeking more productive ways to fix whatever harm made you angry in the first place without hurting more people. To use our earlier example, instead of insulting Lina back, Alan could leave the conversation, take time to calm down, then tell HR about Lina’s behavior to stop it from happening again.

Aristotle: We Need Anger to Be Moral

Unlike Seneca and Nussbaum, other thinkers argue that anger can be controlled and put toward positive ends. Ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle elaborates on this in Nicomachean Ethics, explaining that anger is an essential part of being a moral person. Aristotle believes that part of becoming a moral person is aligning your emotions with what you rationally believe is right and wrong. Then, you’re not just acting morally because you know you’re supposed to. Instead, you’re acting morally because you love things that are moral for their own sake and hate things that are immoral.

This is where anger comes in. Aristotle believes that a moral person can and must feel angry when they see injustice in the world. This anger inspires them to stand up for what they believe in. And because moral people align their emotions with their rational mind, they’re capable of controlling their anger. It won’t push them too far because they hate the idea of losing control to rage and violence as much as they hate whatever made them angry in the first place. For example, if Moral Michelle sees Scary Steve beating up an innocent person, she doesn’t just rationally acknowledge that this is an immoral act. She gets angry at seeing injustice in action, and this anger inspires her to intervene and stop Steve.

Lorde: Anger Drives Political Change

In addition to the benefits and drawbacks of individual anger, some Great Thinkers focus on social and political anger. Twentieth-century American writer Audre Lorde argues in “The Uses of Anger” that anger is essential for social and political change. Writing specifically about anger in the context of combatting racism, Lorde explains that anger not only drives the angry toward action but can also benefit targets of that anger. Specifically, she refers to anger between peers—as opposed to violent, hateful anger—as a way to articulate beliefs and change the opinions of others.

Lorde explains that when she’s angry at her peers for their failures to confront or address racism, she’s not wielding that anger as a destructive force. Instead, she’s using it to shine a light on where she thinks she and her peers can improve moving forward. Lorde describes this as anger providing an opportunity for change.

Great Thinkers’ Advice for/on Topic

• Seneca (On Anger): Anger is an uncontrollable passion that leads to excessive violence and destruction. Instead, we must approach decision-making using reason.
• Martha Nussbaum (Anger and Forgiveness): When anger drives us to get “payback,” it only causes more harm without addressing the original problem. Transition your anger into a calmer, more productive approach to fixing harm.
• Aristotle (Nicomachean Ethics): Anger is important for being a good person because it inspires us to stand up for what’s right and fight against injustice.
• Audre Lorde (“The Uses of Anger”): Anger at peers shines a spotlight on where people can improve and change.

What Do You Think?

Which philosopher’s view on anger resonates most with your experience and why? Reflect on a time recently when you got angry—were you motivated by the idea of payback, justice, or wanting your peers to change? What was the result?