My opponent says that the most noble animals are those with great capacity for anger. He's wrong to hold up creatures that act on impulse instead of reason as examples for humans to follow. In humans, reason should replace impulse. But even with animals, the same trait doesn't help all of them equally. Anger helps lions. Fear helps deer. Boldness helps hawks. Flight helps doves. What if I told you it's not even true that the best animals are the angriest? Wild beasts that hunt for food might be better when they're angrier. But I would praise oxen and horses for their patience in obeying the reins.
Those animals, urges our opponent, are held to be the most generous who have large capacity for anger. He is mistaken when he holds up creatures who act from impulse instead of reason as patterns for men to follow, because in man reason takes the place of impulse. Yet even with animals, all do not alike profit by the same thing. Anger is of use to lions, timidity to stags, boldness to hawks, flight to doves. What if I declare that it is not even true that the best animals are the most prone to anger? I may suppose that wild beasts, who gain their food by rapine, are better the angrier they are; but I should praise oxen and horses who obey the rein for their patience.