osan
Member
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2009
- Messages
- 16,866
Words are important. They are the most important things in our lives, believe it or not.
Therefore, our choices of wording is perforce important, and to that point I would turn your attention toward 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, but fails to what constitutes "aggression". Because of this, I have witnessed endless examples of gross misunderstanding of "aggression", more specifically its initiation, such that some of those cases tap dance right past the absurd.
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". 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.
Johnny tells Janey he is going "let her have it". Is that aggression? There are those who say that it is, and those who deny it with some nontrivial vehemence. This is the key of the problem. As for my view and taken all else equal, Janey stands well within her right to self-defense to take whatever measures she sees fit to remove what we may conversationally take as a threat to her welfare. If she walks away, fine. Kick Johnny in the balls? OK, if imprudent in practical terms. Draw a sidearm and drill him a deep fathom down? You bet. And yet there are those who would argue that any such physical action against Johnny would constitute an initiation of aggression, whereas his ravings would not. Forgetting that this is sheer stupidity, prima facie, we can at least state as a fact that the difference of opinion exists.
Counter 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 to Janey's retrieval of dad's 686 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.
Replacing "aggression" with "transgression" eliminates this wobbly space in the idea. Under no circumstance is it acceptable from a morally principled standpoint of the "western" variety to transgress against another precisely because the term connotes impropriety at the very least, and in most cases perhaps criminality as a matter of definition.
Words are important. Human communication is devilish tricky even under the best circumstances. Adding to that nature, especially in cases where the principles of proper human relations are under consideration makes no reasonable sense whatsoever. We humans seems to be confused enough as it is. 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?
Therefore, our choices of wording is perforce important, and to that point I would turn your attention toward 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, but fails to what constitutes "aggression". Because of this, I have witnessed endless examples of gross misunderstanding of "aggression", more specifically its initiation, such that some of those cases tap dance right past the absurd.
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". 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.
Johnny tells Janey he is going "let her have it". Is that aggression? There are those who say that it is, and those who deny it with some nontrivial vehemence. This is the key of the problem. As for my view and taken all else equal, Janey stands well within her right to self-defense to take whatever measures she sees fit to remove what we may conversationally take as a threat to her welfare. If she walks away, fine. Kick Johnny in the balls? OK, if imprudent in practical terms. Draw a sidearm and drill him a deep fathom down? You bet. And yet there are those who would argue that any such physical action against Johnny would constitute an initiation of aggression, whereas his ravings would not. Forgetting that this is sheer stupidity, prima facie, we can at least state as a fact that the difference of opinion exists.
Counter 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 to Janey's retrieval of dad's 686 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.
Replacing "aggression" with "transgression" eliminates this wobbly space in the idea. Under no circumstance is it acceptable from a morally principled standpoint of the "western" variety to transgress against another precisely because the term connotes impropriety at the very least, and in most cases perhaps criminality as a matter of definition.
Words are important. Human communication is devilish tricky even under the best circumstances. Adding to that nature, especially in cases where the principles of proper human relations are under consideration makes no reasonable sense whatsoever. We humans seems to be confused enough as it is. 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?
