Should We Rid Ourselves Of All Anger?

The injustices in the world seem to be growing everyday. With the the horrible decision taken by the Supreme Court to overturn Roe V Wade in June and with our own government proposing and placing restrictions on our rights, such as the right to protest, things seem bleak. Due to the current political turmoil and these terrible injustices people are angry. But are they right to be angry? Now this is not to state that what is happening is not bad or wrong, as it clearly is, people are having their rights and freedoms torn away from them. But instead this question asks whether we should respond to such terrible situations with anger. Members of the stoic school of thought, such as Seneca, would believe that we shouldn’t. 

While of course is it only natural for humans to react to an injustice with anger, it doesn’t necessitate that we should. Stoics believed that in order to reach ‘eudaemonia’  (flourishing and true happiness) we should abandon any destructive emotion completely. Within his work ‘On Anger’ Seneca defined anger as ‘the desire to take vengeance for a wrong’. He believed that after receiving an impression that one had been wronged, one desires to seek revenge, the emotion of anger is then formed through a wilful judgement that one should act towards vengeance. As anger is a willed judgement and not instinctive, one can resist it. Therefore we should resist it and choose calm over anger. 

Seneca believed that we should destroy anger entirely as it is fundamentally “Wicked”, and as such is a vice that we should “do away with”. He notes anger as being wicked because it pushes reason aside, instructing one to “do wrong” and creating destruction in aim of vengeance, which results in ‘purely negative consequence’. If we were to act upon our anger, we may key the car of an annoying neighbour. This would go against reason as it does little to solve the root of our annoyance. And as such it would only result in negative consequence in that we have done wrong by damaging another property and that it could worsen the situation.  Indeed, acting upon our anger in this situation goes against reason and only brings negative consequence for both parties. Seneca also argues that if  we express any anger, we  could form an angry disposition and become “insane” due to the “unworthiness” of the world. Through constantly getting angry, over minor or major inconveniences, we become an angry person and therefore we are forever prevented from flourishing and reaching out purpose of eudaemonia, essentially we are prevented from reaching true happiness. Indeed then we should avoid anger as not to form an angry disposition. As such Seneca would conclude that we should not express anger, even in the face of injustice, as anger is indeed wicked as it corrupts us and forces us to do wrong, leading to negative consequences. Seneca would state then that we must remain calm and rational when tackling bad situations. 

However, I strongly disagree with Senecas conclusion that we should try and do away with expressing anger. Anger is not fundamentally wicked, as it can produce positive societal progression thus positive consequences, therefore, it should not be eradicated but controlled. Seneca focused on destroying anger to maintain internal purity, so that we do no wrong and can reach eudaemonia. But as a result he failed to consider the positive it could bring in terms of necessary societal progression. Social change is often demanded through the anger of the oppressed within acts such as protests, as reasoned debate is normally not a viable means of change for the oppressed because their opinions would consistently be dismissed by their oppressors. Take the women’s suffrage movement, many were motivated by anger to take vengeance on an oppressive society, that they destroyed property and wellbeing, displaying the anger which Seneca condemned.  But it did eventually lead to a good (and not solely negative consequences) in bettering society by allowing women the vote. As such, we cannot rightly regard anger as inherently wicked as it can be constructive and improve society. Indeed, anger in such a situation can lead to positive consequence such a societal change and therefore cannot be thought of as inherently wicked. 

Furthermore, despite Senecas claims that anger prevents one from reaching true happiness, anger could actually allow one to reach their purpose of eudaemonia.  Indeed anger can promote eudaemonia by resulting in equality and freedom for the oppressed, because, as explained above, anger fuelled protests can bring positive change and justice. Under an oppressive government one wouldn’t be able to truly flourish and reach eudaemonia as one’s activities would be so vastly restricted. Indeed, if one, for example, cannot get an abortion by law they would be forced to have an unwanted child. As such they may not be able to develop intellectually through once intended further education, thus restricting their ability to flourish. Furthermore, they may also fall into a depression which would prevent them practising good and becoming more virtuous. As such, they would be unable to flourish and reach true happiness. Yet by expressing anger in the form of protest they would prevent facing such oppressive restrictions and thus have a better chance of reaching eudaemonia. Anger then, when controlled and expressed correctly, (Ie not getting angry at an inanimate object) can produce positive results such as creating a better environment for reaching eudaemonia itself. Therefore, anger is not inherently wicked and should not be destroyed rather tamed until needed to produce positive societal progression.

To be charitable, one could argue that Seneca’s understanding of anger prevents  it from forming any constructive social movement, even if it possesses good intentions. This being because anger in its essence is unconstrained by reason thus any social movement fed by anger will necessarily fall into a destructive process which prevents the progression of eudaemonia for many. A real world example can be found in the French Revolution, although it began with good ‘non-wicked’ intentions, in which anger was channelled to fight oppressive aristocrats and bring the positive consequence of freedom, it spiralled into anarchy. This resulted in a negative consequences such as a large amount of death and destruction, which clearly would have prevented many in this era reaching eudaemonia. However, this is is a poor argument against the expression of anger, as not all forms of social manifestations of anger are analogous to the French revolution. Perhaps the revolutionaries uncontrolled violence was formed from certain animalistic individuals or was due to contextual factors rather than regular anger itself. Indeed, anger remained a positive, constructive force within the suffrage movement without deteriorating into unreasonable absolute violence and instead sparking positive change. Therefore, anger remains beneficial to the oppressed and through control of its destructive nature can incite positive change, thus, anger is not inherently wicked and should not be destroyed.

Indeed then, we can conclude that when faced with injustice such as the overturn of Roe V Wade, that there is nothing wrong with expressing anger. That you do not simply have to remain calm and rational. In fact it can be useful for inciting real change, when your anger is channelled into protests. And that despite Senecas claims that anger prevents one reaching eudaemonia as it is inherently wicked and causes one to do wrong, anger can actually incite positive change, which can even lead to better conditions to flourish.