Over 35 years ago, I had the chance to hear the Dalai Lama speak in Edinburgh. Someone asked him about the usefulness of anger, especially since he had emphasized love and warned about anger’s dangers. He responded insightfully, saying that while anger can make things happen quickly, it needs to be handled with care. Anger is like pressing the gas pedal—it speeds things up, but it’s crucial to ensure you’re heading in the right direction.
Psychologists share a similar view on outrage, which is closely related to anger but can be distinct. Moral psychologists often see outrage as detrimental because it disrupts our well-being and can be destructive. On the flip side, intergroup psychologists, who study interactions between different groups, often view outrage positively since it can unite people and spark positive change. Today, some psychologists consider emotions, including outrage, as neither inherently good nor bad. What matters is our response to them, so it’s useful to think of anger and outrage in terms of their effectiveness.
Outrage doesn’t always include anger. My dictionary defines outrage as causing fierce anger, shock, or indignation. This means outrage can exist without anger. Personally, I often feel outrage as a shock to my conscience, coupled with a strong desire to correct a wrong, without feeling angry. However, anger is a more personal emotion that usually involves hurtful words aimed at cutting through an obstacle or effecting change.
Outrage can easily devolve into anger or insults, which are ineffective. Therefore, managing outrage carefully is critical. Understanding this distinction is vital. Moral outrage has helped eliminate or reduce various injustices, as intergroup psychologists have noted. Exhibiting outrage, like showing pictures of pollution to promote environmental causes, can be more motivating than pleasant imagery.
However, outrage can also be harmful, leading to bullying and destructive anger, where online mobs target individuals for trivial reasons. Robert Wright, a Buddhist journalist, highlighted this by examining two different cases of outrage. In one case involving Jeanine Pirro’s anti-Muslim comments on Fox News, outrage led to her suspension and a societal shift in what TV presenters are careful about saying. In another case, the prolonged outrage over “Russiagate” made almost no difference since investigations would have continued regardless.
The practical effect of outrage varies. Sometimes it causes advertisers to pull their ads, indirectly leading to on-air suspensions, like in Pirro’s case. But in other instances, such as Russiagate, it made no significant difference. Outrage can also be disproportionately harsh, and it’s exhausting. It takes a psychological and physical toll on us and can become addictive, making us feel aligned with others who share our views. But living in a state of constant outrage is unhealthy and contributes to a culture where we publicly shame people for minor offenses.
Asking ourselves whether our outrage is proportional and useful can help prevent it from turning into mob behavior. Being selective about what we’re passionate about can keep us from getting worn out. While some argue against any form of outrage, suggesting it’s an unskillful emotion, it’s essential to moderate and wisely direct our passionate energies.
Effective action without anger is more impactful and efficient, echoing themes from Karate master Motobu: “anger up – fists down.” Outrage serves as a signal that something is amiss and can be a powerful motivator for action without harboring ill will.
A verse from the Dhammapada illustrates this beautifully: “When anger arises, whoever keeps firm control as if with a racing chariot: him I call a master chariote