On Aggression
And whether it can deliver peace
Aggression has some ugly connotations.
They are hard-won. Aggression is the driving force behind war and all the calamity it brings. However, it has also played its part in society moving forward.
The root of aggression means simply to step forward. As the fuel of ambition, it may be intrinsically tied to progress.
So is there an upside to aggression?
Nowadays, it is a loaded word.
We speak of it mostly in negative terms. In modern discourse, aggression is associated almost exclusively with violence, domination, and cruelty. But this pejorative view is historically uncommon.
The Latin aggredi gave birth to aggression. It means to step toward, to advance upon, or to approach with force.
Some serious societal ills, like poverty, ask for willful engagement.
When channeled appropriately, aggression may fill a necessary niche.
Standing up against bullies, for example, requires some degree of forthrightness. Competition, perseverance, and achievement on the highest level all require a kind of relentless drive. These are the forces behind societal growth.
Arguably, aggression is morally neutral: a biological force that can be harnessed for good and for bad.
If so, the morality of aggression is determined by how (and on what) it is enacted.
A distinction should be made. Healthy aggression is typically precise. It only unleashes itself on unequivocally harmful things, and even then, minimizes collateral damage.
Unhealthy aggression, conversely, is reckless. It makes no attempt at self-control and revels in the damage it inflicts.
Both are forms of aggression, but they are in profound moral opposition.
The world, sadly, is imperfect.
Suffering, injustice, and cruelty are not only real; the world would be better without them. Contained aggression is the primary mechanism for achieving their removal. It follows that it is not only warranted, but sometimes indispensable.
Without adversarial engagement, the bad cannot be undone, and the good cannot be safeguarded.
Because aggression is a precondition for problem-removal, it is deeply intertwined with problem-solving.
Problems, by definition, call for removal. Otherwise, they would not be problematic. That means aggression has a clear purpose: quelling the bad to make life better.
Its proper aim is to undo negative things.
It could be argued that the foremost thing to undo is the bad within.
Because to master yourself means to overcome your own destructive tendencies. If you are too busy making it worse, it is impossible to improve the world. To further the common good means to confront whatever delays it, and that may include ourselves.
So long as conflict is directed towards the negative, it is positive.
Let us assume the counterargument.
We might say that aggression is unequivocally bad.
If that were true, aggression against aggression would be justified. That implies some aggression is good. And so the argument undercuts itself.
No matter how tempting, it is untenable to condemn aggression in its entirety.
Our modern condemnation of it is historically unprecedented.
It is largely a consequence of the safety we enjoy. The military (preparedness for) aggression that guarantees Western peace is far from our daily lives. But imagining it not to be part of life might be fatal.
It is a fundamental aspect of human existence. As we suppress it, we grow vulnerable to those who still carry it.
If channeled properly, aggression could be an asset.
A balanced society should not eliminate it. It should curtail it. Then it can be directed toward worthwhile ends, like peace.
Fire, if wielded with caution, leads to progress, not ruin.
Aggression destroys, but it also helps to create.
Since the universe can be unjust, it is a necessary part of human life. Hence, demonizing it is more dangerous than letting it loose. But like a horse with reins, it must be properly directed.
Sustaining human flourishing requires embracing and constraining the fire within.