The nature of just anger?

[2014taylorj]

I have heard bishop barron define just anger as a desire to set an injustice right. I’m interested to know whether justified anger, is something that has to involve emotion when being carried out? For instance should it involve shouting at someone, or should anger be acted upon in a less aggressive way?

 

[IdaCatholic]

Different situations would call for different reactions. You can’t say it can never involve shouting or that it has to involve it.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I suggest that showing anger is always counterproductive. There are times when you need to use force – for example If someone physically attacks you or your loved ones. But shouting usually keys the other person to shout back, which keys you to shout louder and so on.

 

[0Scarlett_nidiyilii]

The emotion of anger is a normal reaction to a threat. It mobilizes us to protect ourselves.

However, seeing that emotions wax and wane naturally, you don’t need to “feel” anything to “do” the right thing.

For instance, if you know your co-worker is about to be fired because of a lie that got told about them, and you have proof to show your boss, you can go ahead and approach your boss with the evidence even if you feel nothing (you don’t actually know this co-worker), or fear (now youre on the boss’ radar), or smug (the liar has had this coming for a long time).

 

[2014taylorj]

So when justified anger is regarded as a virtue is that in relation to feeling angry or acting upon that anger? It seems impractical to me to act even on every feeling of justifed anger. Can someone please settle my confusion.