Schwitzgebel's Argument Analysis

Schwitzgebel discusses that Flanagan and Bloom's cases against empathy and anger are mainly practical or instrumental and the results are uncanny. He suggested that pushing back against the idea that we should narrow the emotional range of our lives by rejecting empathy and anger. Schwitzgebel suggests that a rich, complex, multi-layered society of loves and hates, victories and losses, art and philosophy, history, athletics, science, music, literature, feats of engineering, great achievements and great failures. He also cares about the negative emotions with destructive emotions in the world. Schwitzgebel does not agree with the Buddhist way it will lead to a lesser world and will lose the complexity and richness of life. This will suggest that the world will be flat without empathy or anger. However, Flanagan was addressing the idea of attachment does not …show more content…
I agree with Schwitzgebel argument on empathy and anger there are some cases that it leads us to live a good life since we need a balance. Flanagan argument based on eliminating anger in our life and only the other emotions matter. In some cases, I believe the Buddhist way is good in a meditative state than eliminating empathy and anger. Everyone in our life needs anger and empathy to make a better judgment and learn from. All human beings tend to make mistakes in their life and you if you don't apply it to your life then you don't know anything. Anger is one part of your life and eliminating it makes you feel inhumane. It is much better to be more humane than just one losing a few of your emotions to make you inhumane just a person who can express anger and empathy. By having all emotions in your life you are able to express your real self than being controlled. Although Flanagan thinks life is simpler without anger and it is sustained through meditation and following some small steps to control your