Passionate Speech: On the Uses and Abuses of Anger in Public Debate

Abstract

Anger dominates debates in the public sphere. In this article I argue that there are diverse forms of anger that merit different responses. My focus is especially on two types of anger that I label respectively arrogant and resistant. The first is the characteristic defensive response of those who unwarrantedly arrogate special privileges for themselves. The second is often a source of insight and a form of moral address. I detail some discursive manifestations of these two types of anger. I show that arrogant anger is responsible for attempts to intimidate and humiliate others with whom one disagrees. Whilst resistant anger can be intimidating, it is also essential in communicating moral demands.

WTF?! Covid-19, indignation, and the internet

“…To use an example from Cherry ( 2014 ), one might be morally angry if you believe you have been fired based on racial discrimination, but one can only be angry (not morally angry) if you believe you have been fired due to your own failures. These contemporary discussions of moral anger have, in particular, emphasised the appropriateness of anger (Srinivasan, 2018 ), as well as its motivational and productive features (Cherry, 2014 , 2021 ; Silva, 2021a , b ; Tanesini, 2021 ). 2 In doing so, such debates have persuasively argued for the recognition of the virtues of moral anger in the face of moral injustices such as racism.…”