I don't think that "anger is a way of holding on to dignity and self respect" (in the face of disappointment). To express it this way makes it sound desirable, even admirable. But is it not an attempt to deny our apparent failure, so that we don't need to experience the disappointment that goes with it? Do we not simply assign blame to someone/something external to ourselves, using anger to fuel and disguise this avoidance tactic?JackDaydream wrote: ↑July 10th, 2022, 2:23 pm I wonder about your idea of anger a failure and probably have a mixed view. It may be more about the extent of the anger, its reason and how it is expressed. It is possible to feel anger which appears disproportionate to an event. For example, if someone loses a game or doesn't get a job which they apply for. Of course, it may depend how important it was. One idea which someone suggested to me, which I find useful, is thinking whether or not something which has happened in 10 years time.
I agree that anger is a way of holding on to dignity and self respect. For example, suppose one fails an exam and they may develop anger for the examiners' biases or for the unfairness of the questions. A sacked worker may say that his employer had a 'problem' with him. In developing such an attitude it enables warding off the sense of personal failure.
In connection with this, there is also anger towards oneself and I definitely have that as often as towards others. I get angry with myself if I don't think that I have behaved badly, overspent, drunk too much alcohol or make a mess of things which I try to do. Forgiving oneself can be harder than forgiving others, although the two are interrelated, in the spirit of compassion.
Failure, or apparent failure, can result in many responses; anger is only one of them. We can consider determination (to do better next time) or regret, for example. Some of these other responses echo certain aspects of anger, but perhaps in a more constructive way?
And why do we think as we do about 'crimes of passion'? We treat a crime committed out of anger as being less blameworthy than the 'cold-blooded' commission of that same crime. Why is that, I wonder? It seems to me that we could look at it the other way around. The angry criminal committed their crime whilst being out of control. They could not change or moderate their own actions, even if they wanted to, because they were in the thrall of anger. In terms of the non-criminal public, are we not in greater (future) danger from someone who might lose control of themselves again, and maybe do the same thing again, or worse? At least someone who acted 'in cold blood' can be treated as a rational being, and maybe persuaded to follow a different path?
If we use anger as an excuse, say in a court of law — "it was a 'crime of passion', yer honour" — are we not seeking to deny responsibility — and maybe shift the blame too — for our own actions? "It wasn't me, it was the anger wot done it". I don't accept that this is a valid defence.
There are all kinds of reasons why a decent person might commit a crime, and these reasons may be central to deciding what punishment might be appropriate, but if I did it, I am guilty (and responsible), even if I had 'good' reasons to do what I did. Except in the most extreme circumstances, we are all responsible for our actions. I think this is a basic foundation for the way we dispense justice, via our laws. Anger cannot and does not over-ride this fundamental principle, IMO.