"Anger is necessary so we can punish people." Really? Do you think the law gets angry at people it doesn't know, has never seen, and hopes will never exist? We should copy how the law thinks. It doesn't get angry — it just defines what counts as a crime. If it's right for a good person to get angry at wicked crimes, then it's also right for him to feel envious when wicked people prosper. What could be more outrageous than seeing people who deserve the worst possible fate actually flourishing and being spoiled by success?
"Anger is necessary to enable us to punish." What? do you think that the law is angry with men whom it does not know, whom it has never seen, who it hopes will never exist? We ought, therefore, to adopt the law's frame of mind, which does not become angry, but merely defines offences: for, if it is right for a good man to be angry at wicked crimes, it will also be right for him to be moved with envy at the prosperity of wicked men: what, indeed, is more scandalous than that in some cases the very men, for whose deserts no fortune could be found bad enough, should flourish and actually be the spoiled children of success?