The Non-aggression Principle

The non-aggression principle is a moral stance which asserts that aggression is illegitimate.

Also called the non-aggression axiom, the anti-coercion principle, the zero aggression principle ZAP, the non-initiation of force, or NAP for short.

Aggression is defined as the initiation or threat of non-consensual physical force against the person or property of another. Aggression is understood to include indirect force such as theft by stealth and fraud. Unlike pacifism, the non-aggression principle does not preclude violence used in self-defense or the defense of others.

The meaning and scope of the NAP is debated. Here are some of the interpretations:

A legal principle about enforceable law. Legal definition (Walter Block)

A fundamental moral principle that applies to the civilized society moral environment (but perhaps not to survival situations or for self-actualization.) Modal ethics definition (Hogeye Bill)

An ethical guideline, one of many heuristic principles for determining norms. Rule utilitarianism

A fundamental moral principle applying everywhere. Unqualified definition and perhaps most common (L. Neil Smith) and perhaps most common (L. Neil Smith) "A moral stance which asserts that aggression is inherently illegitimate.” - Wikipedia and many other sources.

A fundamental moral principle applying everywhere except emergencies. Objectivist definition (Rand, Rothbard, and many others.)

A moral heuristic saying that any aggression must be justified. The Non-Aggression presumption, aka NAp. Intuitionist definition (Michael Huemer)

Hogeye Bill: I like 1, 2, and 6. I use my own modal ethics (#2) the most. Note that what constitutes aggression is dependent on some underlying property system. E.g. In a sticky property system the squatter is the aggressor, while in a possession property system the person who attempts to evict the squatter is the aggressor.

Links: