I didn't see the exchange you're quoting, but it looks to me, based on just those two quotes, like Mongrel read andrewk's comment as saying, "It's a problem to have emotions."

He didn't say that, he said, "emotional responses to crime," and I would assume that he meant, "reactionary responses to crime where the responses are emotional-only."

This is very timely for me, as my philosophy club is meeting tonight to discuss Martha Nussbaum's views on anger, which she wrote about at length in her recent book 'Anger and Forgiveness', and has discussed on downloadable audio at:
- Partially Examined Life Part 1
- Partially examined life part 2, incl interview with Nussbaum
- Partially examined life part 3
- The philosopher's zone
Nussbaum is influenced by the Stoics but distances herself from them to some extent by wanting emotion to have a bigger role than she believes the Stoics wanted. It's all a question of, as un points out, what emotion.

Nussbaum is pretty strongly anti-anger, although she concedes that in certain rare and narrow circumstances it can have a useful instrumental role.

The references to bruised ego are apparently (according to Nussbaum) used by Aristotle in his analysis of anger. She says he identifies anger as generally arising because somebody else disrespects either you or somebody or something that you care about. Aristotle calls this (some Greek equivalent of) 'down-ranking' and connects the desire for retribution with a wish to down-rank the culprit and thereby relatively restore one's own ranking.

Nussbaum doesn't agree with Aristotle that all anger is of that type.

Secondary vs primary emotions is a new concept for me. I need to get my head around it before I can comment.

Secondary vs primary emotions is a new concept for me. I need to get my head around it before I can comment. — andrewk

Well it is my own terminology, and there is a certain inevitable arbitrariness but it ties in closely with this from a review you referenced:

"... (Nussbaum) argues that despite anger’s long cultural history of being seen as morally justifiable and as a useful signal that wrongdoing has taken place, it is a normatively faulty response that masks deeper, more difficult emotions and stands in the way of resolving them."

But here is her position in her own nutshell.

I argue that anger includes, conceptually, not only the idea of a serious wrong done to someone or something of significance, but also the idea that it would be a good thing if the wrongdoer suffered some bad consequences somehow. Each of these thoughts must be qualified in complex ways, but that‟s the essence of the analysis. I then argue that anger, so understood, is always normatively problematic in one or the other of two possible ways.
One way, which I call the road of payback, makes the mistake of thinking that the suffering of the wrongdoer somehow restores, or contributes to restore, the important thing that was damaged. That road is normatively problematic because the beliefs involved are false and incoherent, ubiquitous though they are. They derive from deep-rooted but misleading ideas of cosmic balance, and from people‟s attempt to recover control in situations of helplessness. But the wrongdoer‟s suffering does not bring back the person or valued item that was damaged. At most it may deter future offending and incapacitate the offender: but this is not all that the person taking the road of payback believes and seeks.
There is one case, however, in which the beliefs involved in anger make a lot of sense, indeed all too much sense. That is the case that I shall call the road of status. If the victim sees the injury as about relative status and only about that – seeing it as a “down-ranking” of the victim‟s self, as Aristotle put it – then indeed it does turn out to be the case that payback of some sort can be really efficacious. Lowering the status of the wrongdoer by pain or humiliation does indeed put me relatively up. But then there is a different problem: it is normatively problematic to focus exclusively on relative status, and that type of obsessive narrowness, thought common enough, is something we ought to discourage in both self and others. — Nussbaum

Now to my mind, this is far too cerebral, and makes a distinction between loss of 'the important thing that was damaged' and loss of status that does not look very fruitful. "...the wrongdoer‟s suffering does not bring back the person or valued item that was damaged." It is as if there were a calculation to be made that might make sense of the anger, but the anger comes before the wrongdoer's suffering, which cannot therefore motivate the anger. Rather, anger itself must have animmediate psychological benefit that is expressed in retribution. And I think this is the reduction or masking of pain, specifically the psychological pain of damage to the self-image. This can include any identifications - status, but also the loss of a loved one (note that it is my loss that operates here not the loved one's), or the loss of my stuff, which again is part of my psyche.

The sense that anger makes is thus nothing to do with justice or normativity in the first place, but has an internal defensive role. That is why it is an inappropriate response, because it projects outwards a response to an internal condition. Everyone thinks, including Nussbaum, that anger is a response to the world, but it is not.

What if anger is expressed love, just in another way?

This is an interesting concept I'd hope anyone could entertain.

I'll entertain, if you care to explain.

Well, let's say one has been brought up in a harsh environment, with harsh not much loving parents also due to their own upbringing with all their fragmented and dissociated psyche's. A situation that is quite common even to this day...

One then becomes desensitized to their own feelings and sometimes empathy flies out the window too, given this occurs fairly early when one is impressionable, one does not even recognize the difference in himself and others if his (predominantly) or her intelligence is average.

However, in the case where one even has an above average intelligence (in the most notable cases), they might be able to recognize this trait in themselves; but, here is the crux, they more often than not exploit this facet of their personality and see it as a strength (comparative evolutionary advantage within game theoretic bounds) given therapy is a much more arduous, alienating, and astigmatic path to take which is further compounded by the fact that such individuals are desensitized to the process of learning via emotional reasoning. Coming to terms with being the way they are is often more off putting than accepting themselves and integrating with the rest of people. Often narcissism makes the task more difficult.

The common (calculative and analytical) mindset for such a person is to view people as objects interacting with each other to maximize their own utility. Now, if one feels compelled-given a desire to have children, as I doubt even such non-empathetic people are incapable of love albeit in a different manner, then they feel compelled to pass on what strengths they have found in themselves to their offspring and disguise their love in anger, frustration, indifference and all the other resultant emotions from a lack of being able to feel adequately or empathize.

Now, the whole thing becomes pathological if the offspring have a predisposition to such non-empathetic traits, although sociopaths are said to be a product of nurture, and the circle closes.

it projects outwards a response to an internal condition — unenlightened

What constitutes the response if not the internal condition? Perhaps I misunderstand, but I'd say anger is the internal condition expressed. It can be a response to other internal conditions or external events, or instantiate/emerge without being about anything in particular.

Anger is a secondary emotion. It is a defensive reaction to emotional pain.

I don't know if anger is a secondary emotion (but there may be something like hard and soft emotions, some more intensive some less intensive), it may be a reaction to emotional pain, but the source of that pain is not always entirely clearly evident. People get in a mood, they become angry for no apparent reason. Anger is an affect, and I think it is associated with anxiety, and sadness as sort of a combined affects feeding off each other.

It is interesting that there are no unexpressed emotions, no unconscious emotions, the idea does not seem to make sense. There are however experiences that we do repress, traumas that we have experienced but that we have blocked out of psyche, yet these blocked experiences still effect our lives.

Freud suggested that affects such as anger are (in part) the result of what we have repressed. Repressed traumas do not directly reemerge, rather my current anger is based on my current situation and consciousness. He thought that current affects such as anger arise because there is a miss match between what we are aware of and our biological, psychological response to what is being experienced. Anger in this sense is due to the miss match or disconnection between repressed experiences and their current evocation in experience.

What if anger is expressed love, just in another way? — Question

they want to pass on what strengths they have found in themselves to their offspring and disguise their love in anger and frustration and indifference — Question

I don't think this is going to work (in so far as I understand it at least). Anger can be expressed, suppressed or repressed (using the passive voice or as an object) as in "Anger was expressed (or suppressed or repressed) by her", "She expressed (or suppressed or repressed) her anger". Or anger can express or oppress, or be an expression or an oppression (using the active voice, or as a subject / object, or in an attributive / identifying relation) as in "His anger expresses who he is", "His anger oppressed his opponents (or expressed his beliefs) / He used his anger to oppress his opponents (or to express his beliefs)", "His anger is oppressive (or expressive) / his anger is a form of oppression (or expression)".

Or anger can both express and / or oppress and simultaneously suppress / repress in the sense described by un:

"Rather, anger itself must have an immediate psychological benefit that is expressed in retribution. And I think this is the reduction or masking of pain, specifically the psychological pain of damage to the self-image." — un

The expression is the anger; what is suppressed / repressed is the pain. The primary identity of the anger is found in the expression (to the degree it is expressed*) though its underlying function (and secondary identity or type) is revealed in the suppression / repression.

So, it may be that anger as expression is sometimes caused by a feeling of love or empathy as outlined by un previously in his point about "righteous anger", but it cannot be itself an identity with love (as the two emotions are antithetical) in either a primary or a secondary sense. So, you my get an expressive or oppressive or suppressive or repressive anger, or some combination thereof but not a "loving" anger. Or even love "disguised in anger" as you suggest.

*(Of course anger when suppressed (to whatever degree) finds its identity (in the corresponding degree) in the unexpressed feeling rather than the expressed feeling / associated action (and when repressed seems to find identity only in its potential for expression) but here too it would seem to odd to propose an identify, to call one feeling a disguised form of another (though its precursor may have been another, making it a transformed form of another)).

Just some quick thoughts anyhow, which I may very well back-track on and revise too. It's an interesting subject worth exploring and I've also listened to some of Nussbaum's PEL talks on this

What constitutes the response if not the internal condition? Perhaps I misunderstand, but I'd say anger is the internal condition expressed. It can be a response to other internal conditions or external events, or instantiate/emerge without being about anything in particular. — jkop

Hmm. I need to be a linguistic dictator here. Anger is an emotion, and so an internal motivation. The expression of anger we can call violence to distinguish it. This can take the form of a harsh word, a sharp slap, or whatever, but feeling and action are not the same thing. Perhaps I should say that they become distinct in the process of masking which is the loss of authenticity. If one's primary emotion expressed itself unmodified, when hurt one would cry, and there would not be a need to distinguish the feeling hurt from the crying.


I don't want to go into this yet really, but one can have a response to one's own anger, of fear, or guilt, perhaps, which would be a tertiary emotion that inhibits the secondary feeling of anger that is masking the original pain. And then one can mask that again with a blanket of numbness that becomes depression.

...here is the crux, they more often than not exploit this facet of their personality and see it as a strength (comparative evolutionary advantage within game theoretic bounds) given therapy is a much more arduous, alienating, and astigmatic path to take which is further compounded by the fact that such individuals are desensitized to the process of learning via emotional reasoning. Coming to terms with being the way they are is often more off putting than accepting themselves and integrating with the rest of people. — Question

I'm not sure if I'm following you, but certainly I agree that anger is felt and thought of as a strength, and that is how it functions, in the psyche, as a way of resisting pain, and in the world as a way of resisting others. But I'm not seeing the connection to love you mentioned before.

...it may be a reaction to emotional pain, but the source of that pain is not always entirely clearly evident. People get in a mood, they become angry for no apparent reason. Anger is an affect, and I think it is associated with anxiety, and sadness as sort of a combined affects feeding off each other. — Cavacava

Yes, I'm not even hoping to capture the complexity of emotional life in a few easy concepts. For sure there is what I can call 'emotional weather' with its origins in childhood, or yesterday's unexpressed feelings or whatever. So in some moods, a small irritation can provoke a huge outburst, and in other moods a deal of provocation can be shrugged off.

There are layers and cycles of feeling that are so habitually denied, sublimated, repressed and projected that one often has no idea what one actually feels, or what one is feeling something about. But let's try and consider the simple case first.

It is interesting that there are no unexpressed emotions, no unconscious emotions, the idea does not seem to make sense. There are however experiences that we do repress, traumas that we have experienced but that we have blocked out of psyche, yet these blocked experiences still effect our lives. — Cavacava

This is rather difficult. There are no unexpressed emotions - but sometimes one bites one's tongue. I think I would say that there are indeed unexpressed emotions, in the sense that biting one's tongue does not express the anger but the unwillingness to express the anger. It is at the centre of what I have been saying that the hurt is felt momentarily, but the expression is not made, (because big boys don't cry?), instead it is masked, diverted, assuaged, ameliorated by anger. And this happens so fast, that if one is not attending to oneself, one is not conscious of having been hurt.

But I agree that blocked experiences find expression of some sort; they have their effect - bitten tongues or stress illnesses, or confused masked inexplicable 'other' feelings and sensations.

I want to believe that I have a mind or ego if you wish that is me. It contains me and all that I know. I have my doubts where my emotions come from, maybe my heart or my mind? curious

You know what my emotional state has been. Pretty well perpetual terror, besides a couple cry breaks. Your heart literally could not bear the truth, you should do more push ups.

One can assume that people with a low amount of empathy or desensitized emotions, due to various factors, in fact experience emotions differently than the rest of the group. I mean, their brains are anatomically different on such a level that it impacts their capacity to feel adequately. Thus without the amount of empathy, sorrow, guilt, and other essential emotions of care, one simply expresses their 'love' with anger, indifference, hostility, and malice because that is what they feel is the only way to express their satisfaction with an object/thing/entity.

To think of emotions as existing in categories is a folly in my understanding. For example, a father might feel happy and sad (cognitive dissonance) about working to provide for his family and being a 'man', but not spending time with them, eventually leading him to chose which comes first and at what expense and so on. So too it is a folly to search for happiness as an idealized state of mind, which the Buddhists can lecture about.

One can assume that people with low amount of empathy or desensitized emotions due to various factors, in fact experience emotions differently than the rest of the group. — Question

Actually I think one cannot assume that. Rather one has to assume that we are talking about the same emotions that folks can have more or less of. Otherwise, we will be talking at cross purposes and without communication. So I do not agree that one can express love with anger, indifference hostility or malice. If you want to use words that way, then I'm afraid I cannot discuss with you meaningfully.

Vileness may enter in, if we lack or stifle natural emotion. But so does justice. Justice seeks rational appraisal of emotion. One reading I have of Greek drama and early ethics is that justice tries to bring an end to tales of revenge, and bring us to culture and civilisation.

Rather, anger itself must have an immediate psychological benefit that is expressed in retribution. And I think this is the reduction or masking of pain, specifically the psychological pain of damage to the self-image. — unenlightened

I can see that anger can mask pain, but it seems to me that it replaces it with something worse. To me anger seems to be pain+blame rather than pain pure and simple. I find it easier to cope with just pain.

I find myself surprised at how widely varying people's feelings are about this. Last night we discussed which of the following we would find it harder to cope with:
- seventy people being killed by a tornado; vs
- seventy people being deliberately killed by a person, like Anders Bering Breivik.

To me the second is far more disturbing, because of the anger it evokes, but not everybody felt that way.

There may well be an evolutionary benefit in anger masking pain, in that it motivates the injured animal to fight, thereby making it more likely to end up in a position in which it can propagate its genes. But that is a gene-propagation benefit rather than a psychological benefit. I feel that that is only rarely a benefit in today's society, and far more often a curse. I find myself agreeing with Nussbaum on that score. I find her characterisation of it as a primitive wish for payback quite compelling.

Anger is an affect, it arises between the body and thought. Affects are manifestations of drives, basic instinctual physical responses to certain stimuli. Affects are not emotions, emotions are in the words, the gestures we learn. What we instinctively want things such as food, sex, safety get transformed into the words we use. (a recent study suggests that hunger is the strongest instinct, probably our first) Speech is a mode of conveyance of expression, either verbal or gestural. We learn to associate our current state from others through use of language. We learn what it means to sad, glad, mad, and bad. We learn that others react to us depending on the words we use. The young child denied of TV tries to hurt the parent..."I hate you", they learn that words hurt. They come to understand that the way they feel can be communicated to others by words, phrases, & discourse and words.

Freud thought that anxiety is the key, the master mode that connects the physical stimulus with the felt emotion. Our instinctual drives are dynamic, qualitative and quantitative intensities where anxiety represents an unbalanced state that seeks balance. What we desire is balance, if our demand is not met then we respond in frustration, sadness, or anger depending on the intensities of our feeling.

Yep I agree. There is the biological or instinctual level of evaluation and then the sociocultural overlay that then still gets called emotion, and yet is different in being a learnt construct.

The line gets easily blurred. So when talking about anger, we might try to restrict it to limbic responses - the fight/flight reaction. Or we might then talk about various social scripts that put different slants on the cultural propriety of the raw feeling.

So we might talk about anger as bravery - socially approved fighting. Or we might talk about it as aggressiveness - socially disapproved combativeness.

There is a basic palette of wired responses. And then we can overlay that with an unlimited variety of socially framed views of how some situation ought to rightfully make us feel and act.

This is of course standard psychology. As told here in a list of the seven basic responses as revealed by coordinated reflexive actions.

http://www.humintell.com/2010/06/the-seven-basic-emotions-do-you-know-them/

But where it gets interesting is the human capacity for more social feelings like shame, guilt, empathy, dominance and submission.

These likely have a stronger biological base given we are highly evolved as social creatures.

I find myself surprised at how widely varying people's feelings are about this. Last night we discussed which of the following we would find it harder to cope with:
- seventy people being killed by a tornado; vs
- seventy people being deliberately killed by a person, like Anders Bering Breivik.

To me the second is far more disturbing, because of the anger it evokes, but not everybody felt that way. — andrewk

Here's the thing; when you say that anger is worse, or more disturbing, you are naming the (tertiary) feeling that you have about the feeling of anger. The notion of coping with one's feelings is rather odd, when you think about it.

Suppose I said that the 70 people do not care one way or the other, that they have no feelings on the matter - suppose I said that the people being deliberately killed is preferable and easier to cope with because a gun makes far less mess than a tornado. These are somehow the wrong considerations, I appear callous, oddly, for not focusing on my own feelings.

I can imagine John Cleese indulging his justified anger by giving the tornado a damn good thrashing. So if you feel bad about feeling angry then anger is hard to cope with, but if you feel bad about feeling helpless, anger is preferable. And from that side, it is hard to comprehend that character that enjoys the expression of anger.

X has an image of himself as a calm and measured but sensitive person. So he is disturbed by the angry feelings that Breivik evokes in him, that threaten his self image. There is a positive feedback going on, such that the threat makes him more angry which disturbs him more. He finds it much more comfortable to endure the sadness of the tornado's effect.

Y has an image of himself as an active and responsive person who can live with his own feelings because they are always appropriate. He is unthreatened by his anger at Breivik, but probably more so at his anger at a tornado which looks ridiculously inappropriate, which threatens his self image and makes him more angry in a similar feedback.

I might have a go at Z later on, who has a negative selfi-mage...

Ken Loach interview.

“Angry? Mmmmmmm,” Loach says so quietly it barely registers. He talks about the people he and his regular writer Paul Laverty met while doing their research: the young lad with nothing in his fridge who hadn’t eaten properly for three days; the woman ashamed of attending food banks; the man told to queue for a casual shift at 5.30am, then sent home an hour later because he wasn’t needed. “That constant humiliation to survive. If you’re not angry about it, what kind of person are you?”

Here is a little challenge that helps me clarify my thinking. Ken is extolling the virtue of empathic anger. But what is this feeling that he expresses so quietly? We see the empathic hurt, and then we see the response, to make film. Ken's films are "hard hitting" Is that violence? Is that anger?

I want to say that to be hurt and upset, and to respond with vigour and determination is not necessarily to be angry, at least in the sense in which I have been using the word. I would rather say that Ken responds to the primary empathic hurt, which he does not cover with a secondary anger. I say this because for me anger consists of the urge to hurt or harm, and there seems to be none.

I'm not sure if this is a sustainable distinction in terms of a judgement of another's actions, but on a personal level, I think it works. There is a clear difference in motivation between wanting to support the underdog, and wanting to cut the overlord down to size, although the action may sometimes be the same.

Just as, though we talk about 'fighting cancer', the motivation is to help the patient, not to hurt the cancer.

There is a great danger in this though, that it gives comfort to the reluctant torturer. "I don't really want to hurt you, I'm just thinking of all those innocent people who will be harmed if I don't."

Psychologically, I would say that this happens on a small scale all the time. I like to think I'm a decent chap who wishes harm to no one, so my anger is unacceptable to me. So I deny it, suppress the immediate response, and rationalise to an action that expresses my anger covertly. And this tertiary response to my own anger has the semblance to me and to another of being a positive response to empathic hurt.

Cool thread, un.

Just some initial thoughts here:

Anger, I think, is not the easier case. Jealousy, as a source of evil at least, would make more sense to me to focus on because I find it hard to think of a case where the motivation of jealousy is a good thing, even when the effects are good (say, donating to a charity out of jealousy because of a vain desire to appear better than someone else) ((although, then again, perhaps we don't need to mention the effects at all here -- because the conversation is already primarily focused on motivation, rather than the effects of our actions, as a locus of evil... or at least wrongdoing, if evil seems too strong a word)). But anger has so many layers to it that I find it hard to make sense of it in such declarative terms. Anger is a proper response in some cases, and in some ways, and not so in other cases or other ways. It's the way anger is expressed, I'd wager, that makes it bad or good. (indeed, I would hazard to say that unexpressed anger is itself not a good thing, though it makes sense to wait for the right context in which to express it)

For instance, I think there is a kind of anger that is harmful to the angry person. It doesn't matter if the anger is acted on or not, but it is a kind of consuming anger which causes harm to the person who is angry -- and if it is acted upon, harm to what that person directs their anger against.

But then there is justified anger. I agree with you in that it's not the state of the world which causes this anger, but I'm not sure I could say that it is a response to emotional pain. Couldn't anger just be emotional pain, for instance? Say I am attached to some thing in the world and I lose it -- loss and anger accompany this attachment. That is emotional pain.


Though (and this might be tangential -- depending on how much you were wanting to focus on the relationship between good motivation and good actions) I might be a bit at odds with the initial thoughts on goodness and badness, too, since harm to another is not something I would say is wrong, tout court. That isn't to say I endorse revenge -- revenge, I would agree, is a poor motivation. But I'm not so certain that harm is morally forbidden. Or, at least, that it both is and isn't -- there's a sense in which I would say harming another is always a shame, but that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be done, in such and such a circumstance. (as in, a better world is one without harm to others, but in this world, harm in this case was the better option)

Jealousy, as a source of evil at least, would make more sense to me to focus on because I find it hard to think of a case where the motivation of jealousy is a good thin... — Moliere

I'm not so sure jealousy is simpler. One could say that jealousy is the motivator of competition, and competition is the motivator of excellence. It seems to be concerned again with self image, and may or may not involve a component of anger. But whether it is felt to be good or bad, that feeling comes after the jealousy itself, and does not affect the complexity of the source of the feeling.

Anger is a proper response in some cases, and in some ways, and not so in other cases or other ways. It's the way anger is expressed, I'd wager, that makes it bad or good. (indeed, I would hazard to say that unexpressed anger is itself not a good thing, though it makes sense to wait for the right context in which to express it)

For instance, I think there is a kind of anger that is harmful to the angry person. It doesn't matter if the anger is acted on or not, but it is a kind of consuming anger which causes harm to the person who is angry -- and if it is acted upon, harm to what that person directs their anger against. — Moliere

I'm concerned to emphasise that whether anger is proper or improper, good or bad, harmful or not, is a feeling one has about one's anger (or about another's). The phrase 'consuming anger' is interesting; when one is consumed by anger, it has taken over, to the extent that in the moment, there is no judgement - no feeling about anger - one is anger itself, completely. To get carried away is to be for a moment undivided, single minded, and this is a wonderful state of no (internal) conflict. Afterwards, one may judge one's condition to have been proper or improper in the usual divided and conflicted way. This is part of the attraction of anger, that it liberates one from conflict.

... harm to another is not something I would say is wrong, tout court. That isn't to say I endorse revenge -- revenge, I would agree, is a poor motivation. But I'm not so certain that harm is morally forbidden. Or, at least, that it both is and isn't -- there's a sense in which I would say harming another is always a shame, but that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be done, in such and such a circumstance. (as in, a better world is one without harm to others, but in this world, harm in this case was the better option) — Moliere

I want to hold clear the distinction between the feeling - anger, and the action - harming. So, although it is not always used quite this way, I define anger as the feeling that motivates harm. Now one can't make an omelette without breaking eggs, but breaking eggs isn't normally the motive. So to endorse harm is not necessarily to endorse anger. I support taxing the rich, not to damage them, but to help the poor. I can imagine not hating Hitler, but loving Jews enough to assassinate him.

The whole enterprise of categorization of emotions as this that or the other is problematic because there are just far too many exceptions.

As in the Nussbaum quote about anger being the source of payback or wanting to see someone get their comeuppance really sounds more like vengeance. The purpose of law is to exclude emotion from the equation and to offer fairness, which might equate to payback in some form. We consider a good judge to be a tempered one, not one that is fiery and spewing venom. In fact, we'd exclude a potential juror from hearing a case if he expressed hostility. On the other end of the spectrum, we have the sociopathic who can with a calm heart and cold blood commit all sorts of heinous acts, not motivated at all by anger, but simply carrying out their will.

And I'd think that anger is a very good thing in certain contexts, not leading to vengeance, but leading to something productive. The anger over injustice has led plenty to pass laws and start humanitarian organizations for example. Passions can be channeled to good or bad, whether the passion be love, hate, anger or whatever.

It just seems that Nussbaum is criticizing vengeance, which is hardly controversial, although to what extent this tramples on Kant's just desserts is another issue. That is to say, if the justification for giving you your just dessert is out of a respect for your autonomy and choice, then we've arrived at an alternative explanation than simply saying that we're punishing you because we're good and pissed off about it.

I see emotion as just that which moves you to action, thus the root "motion" within it. If we were emotionless we'd be as computers waiting for someone to offer a use for us. And so I'd submit that if anger over injustice moves us to feed the hungry, then it is a good thing, and if love of our country moves us to open fire into a crowd, it is a bad thing.

Catagories schmatagories.

I see emotion as just that which moves you to action, thus the root "motion" within it. If we were emotionless we'd be as computers waiting for someone to offer a use for us. And so I'd submit that if anger over injustice moves us to feed the hungry, then it is a good thing, and if love of our country moves us to open fire into a crowd, it is a bad thing.

Catagories schmatagories. — Hanover

I agree with your definition of emotion, but it seems to entail that a tempered judge is not an emotionless judge. You seem to be clear enough on the distinction between fiery and tempered, but you dismiss my analysis. Perhaps you could explain your own schmatagories?

If the OP is saying that anger has something to do with identity, I'd agree with that. So would Aeschylus. But like Hanover, I'd warn against trying too hard to make an emotion encyclopedia.

Anger is a component of PTSD and typical grief. Why? Don't know. A naturalistic answer is easy: anger is a source of energy for fight/flight. Having worked in neonatal intensive care, my assessment is that anger is there long before there is any sense of identity to reinforce.

Its there prior to mastery of language and during the development of that mastery. One point I'd make is this: that's a person you're analyzing. Take a moment to become aware of your own motives for doing psychoanalysis. Check out Thomas Moore's Dark Eros for a full check list of possibilities.

Toddler rants at violated property rights. Family thinks it's funny:

One point I'd make is this: that's a person you're analyzing. Take a moment to become aware of your own motives for doing psychoanalysis. — Mongrel

Well the person I'm mostly interested in analysing is myself. Understanding my own understanding is just what I am interested in. Sometimes it looks like psychoanalysis, and sometimes it looks more like philosophical analysis.

Anger is a component of PTSD and typical grief. Why? Don't know. — Mongrel

So I am suggesting a reason. Whether it is true for another is for them to find out for themselves or not as they wish. Your health warning will no doubt be heeded by some, but for those that like to think too hard about such things, I plan to continue to dispense my rather vague psychobabble.

Personally, I think the toddler deserves to be taken seriously and offered an apology and compensation. I don't find the anger of the powerless that funny.