A recent article in the Financial Times about 'good' anger reminded me of a lecture on anger that I attended several years ago at a small Buddhist center in Wimbledon. The lecture, delivered by a Buddhist monk, was about the dangers of anger and the benefits of letting it go -- related to the broader message of letting go of anguish that is central to Buddhism. I broadly agreed, and agree now, with these points.

But I found myself wondering as I listened to the monk, why is it part of human nature to feel anger? There must be a purpose. And the purpose, it seemed apparent as I sat listening, is to show others when they have crossed beyond the limits of proper behavior. Such signals have clear value as a defense mechanism, to assert authority, and for other purposes.

After the lecture, I approached the monk to test my hypothesis on the purpose of anger. He nodded, and responded something like this:"In Buddhism, we talk about 'anger' and 'wrath'. Anger is a dangerous emotion that interferes with right action. Wrath is a different, allowing us to show our moral outrage without debilitating anger."

This distinction between anger and wrath is an important one. The two emotions are very different, divided as the monk observed by whether they take over our ordinary rational behavior. As an evolved reflex, it makes sense for humans to be engineered to show beneficial wrath through the trigger of anger. But the two emotions need not go together. The ability to show appropriate wrath without debilitating anger is an important skill for an advanced being.