Homework 131, Amia Srinivasan, The aptness of anger

Your answers must be in your own words.

1a. When Srinivasan says "anger isn't normatively evaluable only according to its effects," what does she mean? (Explain this in your own words, don't just repeat what she says later in the paragraph). (1pt)
b. Give an example of another emotion, not discussed in this reading, that is not normatively evaluable only according to its effects, and explain why it is not. (2pts)

2. Srinivasan discusses instrumental and intrinsic reasons for being angry. Sometimes people characterize intrinsic reasons for an emotion as "backwards looking" and instrumental reasons as "forward looking." Why does this characterization make sense? (2pts)

3. a. Srinivasan claims that someone who knows, for example, about racism but fails to get angry does not really know about racism. What are they missing? (1pt)
b. Give a plausible example, involving a different emotion (not anger), in which someone who knows that x, but doesn't feel the appropriate emotion, does not seem to really know about x. (2pts)

4. Srinivasan claims that it is appropriate in some cases to feel "eternal anger." What do you think about that, and why? (2pts)