Dump The NAP

 Words are important.  They are in fact the most important things in our lives.

Therefore, our choices of wording is perforce important, and to that point I would turn your attention to that which has come to be known as the Non-Aggression Principle, AKA the "NAP".  While the spirit of the NAP is righteous, the choice of "aggression" in the moniker is quite unfortunate.  It states that the initiation of aggression is always a bad thing with no moral or princi[pled validity.  This particular architecture of the concept fails on the basis of its simplistic construction, a common problem with many ideas.  Because of this, I have witnessed endless examples of the gross misapprehension of "aggression", more specifically the assessment of its initiation, such that some of those cases tap dance right past the absurd.

As often, it serves us well to consult the dictionary for definitions of "aggression".  To wit:

AGGRESSION, n. The first act of injury; an attack; and assault. - Worcester English Dictionary, 1860

AGGRESSION, n. The first act of injury.  -Samuel Johnson's Dictionary of 1785

 

AGGRESSION, n. The first attack, or act of hostility; the first act of injury, or first act leading to a war or a controversy; unprovoked attack; assault; as, a war of aggression.  - Webster's Unabridged Dictionary

From just these entries we can see that "aggression" is a rather broad term.  It may connote physical acts, verbal, or simply the perception of conditions such as one's posture, choice of words, etc.

Words are important.  Therefore, and because the term "aggression" seems to evade far too many in terms of a sufficiently precise meaning, I suggest leaving that term in the rear view mirror in favor of "transgression".   Once more, the dictionary comes to our aid:

TRANSGRESSION, n. The act of transgressing, or of passing over or beyond any law, civil or moral; the violation of a law or known principle of rectitude; breach of command; fault; offense; crime; sin. 

Here we see a term whose meaning always connotes and impropriety or crime, which is to say that a transgression is always deemed as wrong, whereas with aggression it is not always the case.  Transgression is always incorrect as a matter of definition, whereas aggression is not.  It is the fact of the latter that we run into the problem of semantics.  Let us illustrate with an example.

Siblings have their moments.  Janey irritates Johnny in some manner and Johnny blithely lets her know "I'm going to murder you".  Kids say the darnedest things.  In all good likelihood Johnny was not to be taken literally, and so Janey's retrieval of dad's revolver, whereby she holds Johnny at bay until police arrive is probably not justified.  And yet, Johnny uttered words that under differing circumstances might justly see him interred.  Words are important, but so is context.  

A further example may be found in a military action.  Intelligence establishes that terrorists are making bombs at a given location in a foreign land. It further indicates that those bombs will be used to slaughter innocent civilians pursuant to a political objective, which is the very definition of "terrorism".  In such a case, the initiation of aggression through air strikes designed and intended to kill the entirety of the terrorist population is completely justifiable, even though said terrorists have not yet acted upon their intentions to murder innocents.

A stranger on the street by some means gives you cause to suspect they have violent intentions toward you.  In response, you preemptively draw your sidearm and either hold them at bay for police, or if deemed necessary you shoot their carcass out from under their hat.  You have aggressed, yet have committed no crime or other offense against another because you acted in self defense even though your would-be attacker had not yet made his definitive move.

Replacing "aggression" with "transgression" eliminates this wobbly semantic space in the idea due to the extremely broad spectrum of the meaning of "aggression", whereas under no circumstance is it acceptable from a morally principled standpoint of the "western" variety to transgress against another precisely because the term connotes criminality as a matter of pure definition.  But aggression at times is not only acceptable, it is advisable as the examples illustrate.

Words are important.  Human communication is devilish tricky even under the best of circumstances.  Let us not further cultivate bewilderment to the detriment of understanding not only what we say to one another, but that of what is expected of us in terms of the aforementioned principles, which is a really big deal.

Transgression covers it all, and does so unambiguously, whereas "aggression" is a far more vague term prone to widely differing opinions as to what precisely defines it.  No man holds the right to transgress against another, whereas under conditions one may indeed hold proper authority to initiate aggression in the face of a looming, yet veiled threat.

Have I mentioned that words are important?

Be well, be prosperous, be worthy, be proper, and as always, until next time please accept my best wishes.