Editing Anger (section)

===Modern perspectives===
[[Immanuel Kant]] rejects revenge as vicious. Regarding the latter, [[David Hume]] argues that because "anger and [[hatred]] are passions inherent in our very frame and constitution, the lack of them is sometimes evidence of weakness and imbecility".<ref name="EoE"/> [[Martha Nussbaum]] has also agreed that even "great injustice" is no "excuse for childish and undisciplined behavior".<ref>{{Cite news|last=Srinivasan|first=Amia|date=2016-11-30|title=Would Politics Be Better Off Without Anger?|journal=The Nation|language=en-US|url=https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/a-righteous-fury/|access-date=2020-06-24|issn=0027-8378|archive-date=2020-06-26|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200626180505/https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/a-righteous-fury/|url-status=live}}</ref> Two main differences between the modern understanding and ancient understanding of anger can be detected, Kemp and Strongman state: one is that early philosophers were not concerned with possible harmful effects of the [[#Suppression|suppression of anger]]; the other is that, recently, studies of anger take the issue of [[gender differences]] into account.<ref name="AngerTheory"/> Soraya Chemaly has in contrast argued that anger is "a critically useful and positive emotion" which "warns us, as humans, that something is wrong and needs to change" when "being threatened with indignity, physical harm, humiliation and unfairness" and therefore "a powerful force for political good".<ref name="Chemaly-2019">{{Cite news|last=Chemaly|first=Soraya|date=2019-05-11|title=How women and minorities are claiming their right to rage|language=en-GB|work=The Guardian|url=https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/may/11/women-and-minorities-claiming-right-to-rage|access-date=2020-06-24|issn=0261-3077|archive-date=2020-07-14|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200714042901/https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/may/11/women-and-minorities-claiming-right-to-rage|url-status=live}}</ref> Furthermore, she argues that women and minorities are not allowed to be angry to the same extent as white men.<ref name="Chemaly-2019" /> In a similar vein, [[Rebecca Traister]] has argued that holding back anger has been an impediment to the progress of [[women's rights]].<ref>{{cite web|last=Kipnis|first=Laura|date=2018-10-02|title=Women Are Furious. Now What?|url=https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/11/rebecca-traister-good-and-mad/570826/|access-date=2020-06-24|website=The Atlantic|language=en-US|archive-date=2020-06-27|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200627052020/https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/11/rebecca-traister-good-and-mad/570826/|url-status=live}}</ref>

The American psychologist [[Albert Ellis (psychologist)|Albert Ellis]] has suggested that anger, rage, and fury partly have roots in the philosophical meanings and assumptions through which human beings interpret [[wikt:transgression|transgression]].<ref name="Ellis">Ellis, Albert (2001). Overcoming Destructive Beliefs, Feelings, and Behaviors: New Directions for Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy. [[Prometheus Books]].</ref> According to Ellis, these emotions are often associated and related to the leaning humans have to absolutistically depreciating and damning other peoples' humanity when their personal rules and domain are transgressed.