irateplatypus

it seems like compromise is a topic much visited here on TFP and in the ongoing larger public debate. i'm just not sure i understand why compromise is held up as a positive thing in and of itself. it's the edifying of compromise beyond a means to an actual end that baffles me.

if i believe something to be the right (or most effective) thing to do and have the means to do it... is it not morally bankrupt to try to establish common ground for its own sake?

i say the only instance in which compromise can be a moral exercise is when it's necessary. only when a compromise achieves the maximum number of your own goals and as few opposing ones is it a morally responsible thing to do. i'm quite certain that our legislators (by and large) adhere to this philosophy and only use a smokescreen of genuine willingness to compromise in order to mollify the simpler sections of the electorate. and yes, i do realize that there are political considerations made in compromises to effect a political advantage. i'm addressing the sentiment among the electorate that compromises "should" be made as opposed to "often must" be made.

there are people who think compromising is an end in itself. how can this be a moral position? if you hold this position, please explain to me your reasoning behind this.

__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill