Final answer:
Wiesel embraces anger as a constructive force against injustice and deplores hate due to its destructive, enduring nature. Anger can lead to positive change, while hate fosters ongoing suffering. This distinction is especially important in historical contexts like genocide, where some chose altruism over hate.
Step-by-step explanation:
Wiesel embraces anger as a natural, visceral response to injustice and oppression, which can fuel productive change and resistance against inhumanity. On the other hand, he deplores hate as it represents a deep and prolonged sentiment that can lead to sustained harm and violence. Anger can be a momentary, passionate reaction that calls for rectifying wrongs, while hate indicates a more fixed, enduring state that often seeks to perpetuate suffering and degrade others. In historical contexts, such as during genocide, the distinction between anger and hate becomes critical in determining the actions and legacy of individuals confronted with extreme scenarios.
Examples of people choosing altruism over hate are commemorated in places like Yad Vashem in Israel, which honors the Righteous Among the Nations who exhibited courage and decency in the darkest of times. Nietzsche's parable of the lambs and the birds of prey illustrates the birth of morality from the impersonal expression of personal anger. Personal stories and historical challenges, from the impact of racism to the struggle for human rights, show the importance of embracing anger for positive change while rejecting the destructive nature of hate.