# data[].attributes.body
A Philosopher and monk whose core belief is that anger has no good and must be entirely let go to reach the Buddhist ideal of enlightenment.

# data[].attributes.body
Callard opens the article with a hypothetical situation to give context and smoothly transition to her main argument.

"Suppose that you are angry on Tuesday because I stole from you on Monday. Suppose that on Wednesday I return what I stole; I compensate you for any disadvantage occasioned by your not having had it for two days; i offer additional gits to show my good will; I apologize for my theft as a moment of weakness; and, finally, I promise never to do it again. Suppose, in addition, that you believe my apology is sincere and that I will keep my promise. (Callard 1)"

# data[].attributes.body
Callard then follows the scenario with questions that can allow the reader to think critically about their own thoughts on the topic, anger.

"Could it be rational for you to be just as angry on Thursday as you were on Tuesday? Moreover, could it be rational for you to conceive of a plan to steal from me in turn? And what if you don't stop at one theft: could it be rational for you to go on to steal from me again, again, and again? (Callard 1)"

# data[].attributes.body
Callard then gives answers to the questions, explaining that although the universal view is that initial anger is rational and limitless anger, such that would contain grudges and vengeance is irrational, all the ways that were mentioned in the questions are rational.

"The real debate concerns the three questions about anger and rationality in my second paragraph, which are not rhetorical, and to which the answer might well be: yes, yes, and yes. (Callard 1)"

# data[].attributes.body
Callard states, "Once you have a reason to be angry, you have a reason to be angry forever, (Callard 5)" claiming how holding grudges can be rational because of the fact that "there are reasons to remain angry"- the reasons being the same ones that caused the initial anger. And since actions like apologizing can't erase the original wrongdoing and that the past can't be undone, the reasons for anger will always persist.

# data[].attributes.body
Seeking revenge is rational because it allows us to hold each other accountable for our actions. Revenge can use the action of wrongdoing as a basis for future interactions.

# data[].attributes.body
The pro-anger's perspective is that anger is an important part of morality and acts as fuel to stand up to injustices. This perspective has been rooted from Aristotle's idea that intense emotions are "what allow the eye of the soul to perceive moral value... (Callard 3)"

# data[].attributes.body
The anti-anger's perspective centers on the idea that anger can only cause harm due to its destructive qualities such as holding grudges and seeking revenge.

# data[].attributes.body
Seneca is a roman philosopher who supports the idea that "anger is a form of madness". He also wrote the essay, De Ira, expanding his ideas on how to control and manage the effects of anger.

# data[].attributes.body
Nussbaum further argues that anger is commonly mistaken because of how it is infected with destructive qualities such as vengeance.

# data[].attributes.body
A sentimentalist that brought upon the idea of making emotions the fundamental way of moral accountability. Gives an example of how anger can be viewed as the understanding that one has done something wrong and can potentially change and make amends.

"Anger treats its target as someone capable of recognizing that she has done wrong and is to be contrasted with the indifference or calculating carefulness by which we might react to someone we see no hope of reintegrating into the moral community. (Callard 3)"

# data[].attributes.body
Both sides soon had a shared agreement how anger can be purified when there are no destructive aspects such as harmful grudges or vengeance attached to it. So both claim that anger can be split into two parts: the moral side and the destructive side.

"Instead, both sides prefer to segregate the "moral side" of anger (Tuesday's anger, which takes the form of rational and justified protest at injustice) from the "dark side" (Thursday's anger, which takes the form of irrational grudges and unjustifiable vengeance). (Callard 4)"

# data[].attributes.body
Callard mentions that it is common for people to hold grudges and seek revenge in response to injustice, and that we shouldn't be quick to label them as unhealthy. She goes on to present two parts to her argument: Argument of grudges and Argument of Revenge, saying how both can be rational.

# data[].attributes.body
In addition to arguing that revenge can be rational, Callard makes an additional claim saying that anger cannot be purified; that it is impossible to separate the moral aspect from the immoral aspect of anger (grudges and revenge). She supports this by stating that, "Being a good person means, at times, being willing to do bad things. (Callard 11)" Thus, her conclusion is that anger will always be anger.

# data[].attributes.body
Callard quickly responds saying that the conclusion that anger is irrational and unjustified is only formed by the assumption the goal of revenge is to solve anger and that anger can be changed.

# data[].attributes.body
It is irrational for someone to seek revenge and continue staying angry for their entire life. The rational way to handle anger is to set it aside.

# data[].attributes.body
Callard notes that although some may judge it being the rational decision to let go of your anger, it doesn't resolve the underlying cause of the anger, saying "It hasn't been, and it won't ever be. (Callard 6)"

# data[].attributes.body
Callard notes that anger is not a desire to fix the wrongdoing, but rather an acknowledgement of it. And if anger is fundamentally about recognizing that something wrong has occurred, then holding a grudge is a rational response because it just maintains that acknowledgement.

# data[].attributes.headline
Friedrich Nietzsche's Genealogy of Morals (1887)

# data[].attributes.subject
Friedrich Nietzsche's Genealogy of Morals (1887)

# data[].attributes.body
Nietzsche gives a historical context on morality, explaining how our morality now was built from our "resentful bloodlust". In further detail, he describes that the once morality was based on strength and nobility which soon created a new morality, ressentiment, that was created by the people who felt oppressed and enslaved by the nobles.

# data[].attributes.headline
Michel Foucault's Discipline and Punish (1975)

# data[].attributes.subject
Michel Foucault's Discipline and Punish (1975)

# data[].attributes.body
Foucault describes the transition from the past public executions to the present system of punishment by imprisonment, explaining how both methods shared a common goal, which was to rely a message and set an example. His central argument is that in order to do something moral, such as preventing any heinous crime, we often resort to doing something immoral, such as putting people to prison, etc.

# data[].attributes.headline
Rene Girard's Violence and the Sacred (1972)

# data[].attributes.subject
Rene Girard's Violence and the Sacred (1972)

# data[].attributes.body
Girard talks about how violence can lead to a chain of limitless, revengeful violence. He argues that this cycle is set off by those who are horrified by the acts of violence, and thus having a strong sense of moral duty to prevent it. However, he adds that the pursuit to prevent violence is also an act of violence.

Girard also adds that in order to stop this cycle, humans would utilize scapegoating and human/animal sacrifices.

"Violence and the opposition to violence are one. (Callard 11)"

# data[].attributes.body
Yellow: Background information

Green: Academic debate

Red: Argument

White: Subclaim

Blue: Counter argument

Purple: Rebuttal

# data[].attributes.headline
Callard, Agnes. "Angry Forever," 2020. The Boston Review, 

# data[].attributes.subject
Callard, Agnes. "Angry Forever," 2020. The Boston Review, 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
There are two problems with anger: it is morally corrupting, and it is completely correct.