The Myth of Compromise | Bitcointalksearch.org

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: EhVedadoOAnonimato on November 13, 2011, 11:03:24 AM

Quote from: Hawker on November 12, 2011, 06:56:33 PM

Quote from: EhVedadoOAnonimato on November 12, 2011, 06:34:49 PM

Quote from: Hawker on November 12, 2011, 07:03:02 AM

...

I think you will agree that was a moral compromise. Do you think we were wrong to accept that compromise?

I'd say it's more an act of partial surrender than of ethical compromise. You are not abandoning your principles when you surrender to an aggressor that's stronger than you. It is comparable - in a much less dramatic degree, of course - to what honest people do every time they fill their tax forms or give their wallets to an armed thug who threatens them.

(It's a horrible story you tell there... such deal, did it really work out? I mean... the terrorists released, they just... stopped being terrorists? I imagine every step they took after that was closely watched, but still)

Yes it worked. Both sides gave up their principles...

How conveniently you ignore my first paragraph.
You don't give up on your principles when you surrender to someone threatening you.

In situations like Northern Ireland, Bosnia, Israel/Palestine or wherever you have these tribal type wars, both sides are aggressors and both sides are victims. Neither side was defeated. Neither side could be said to have gotten justice. Both sides abandoned principles that good men died for.

EhVedadoOAnonimato

hero member

Activity: 630

Merit: 500

Quote from: Hawker on November 12, 2011, 06:56:33 PM

Quote from: EhVedadoOAnonimato on November 12, 2011, 06:34:49 PM

Quote from: Hawker on November 12, 2011, 07:03:02 AM

...

I think you will agree that was a moral compromise. Do you think we were wrong to accept that compromise?

I'd say it's more an act of partial surrender than of ethical compromise. You are not abandoning your principles when you surrender to an aggressor that's stronger than you. It is comparable - in a much less dramatic degree, of course - to what honest people do every time they fill their tax forms or give their wallets to an armed thug who threatens them.

(It's a horrible story you tell there... such deal, did it really work out? I mean... the terrorists released, they just... stopped being terrorists? I imagine every step they took after that was closely watched, but still)

Yes it worked. Both sides gave up their principles...

How conveniently you ignore my first paragraph.
You don't give up on your principles when you surrender to someone threatening you.

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: ALPHA. on November 12, 2011, 07:04:39 PM

If there wasn't organized oppression, there wouldn't be organized resistance and what we call terrorism wouldn't exist.

You are kidding yourself. No-one oppressed the Shankill Butchers - they simply wanted more power for their version of Christianity.

Bad people exist - you are deluding yourself if you think that some change in the law will remove that fact that there are people who like to organise for their religion or tribe and kill people from another religion or tribe. Its hard-wired into our human nature and every legal system has to deal with it.

ALPHA.

newbie

Activity: 42

Merit: 0

If there wasn't organized oppression, there wouldn't be organized resistance and what we call terrorism wouldn't exist.

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: EhVedadoOAnonimato on November 12, 2011, 06:34:49 PM

Quote from: Hawker on November 12, 2011, 07:03:02 AM

...

I think you will agree that was a moral compromise. Do you think we were wrong to accept that compromise?

I'd say it's more an act of partial surrender than of ethical compromise. You are not abandoning your principles when you surrender to an aggressor that's stronger than you. It is comparable - in a much less dramatic degree, of course - to what honest people do every time they fill their tax forms or give their wallets to an armed thug who threatens them.

(It's a horrible story you tell there... such deal, did it really work out? I mean... the terrorists released, they just... stopped being terrorists? I imagine every step they took after that was closely watched, but still)

Yes it worked. Both sides gave up their principles and both sides by and large stopped terrorism. Sectarian violence will never stop but the paramilitary campaigns have been history for 15 years.

EhVedadoOAnonimato

hero member

Activity: 630

Merit: 500

Quote from: Hawker on November 12, 2011, 07:03:02 AM

...

I think you will agree that was a moral compromise. Do you think we were wrong to accept that compromise?

I'd say it's more an act of partial surrender than of ethical compromise. You are not abandoning your principles when you surrender to an aggressor that's stronger than you. It is comparable - in a much less dramatic degree, of course - to what honest people do every time they fill their tax forms or give their wallets to an armed thug who threatens them.

(It's a horrible story you tell there... such deal, did it really work out? I mean... the terrorists released, they just... stopped being terrorists? I imagine every step they took after that was closely watched, but still)

EhVedadoOAnonimato

hero member

Activity: 630

Merit: 500

Quote from: Inedible on November 12, 2011, 04:49:24 AM

What of a situation where someone needs to steal to feed someone starving to death? Or steals medication to prevent imminent death? (e.g. anaphylactic shock)

In both cases, the thief is destitute and has no means to pay.

Nothing changes. Stealing is wrong. The ends do not justify the means. Of course, the victim may always forgive the thief - in which case there's no more a theft, but a donation. But if not forgiven, the thief must pay back his victim.

(By the way, in both situations he could just ask. In most contemporaneous societies he wouldn't have a hard time finding someone willing to help. And if he lives in a society where such help just can't be found, then it's clear he's not the only one going through very hard times.)

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: EhVedadoOAnonimato on November 10, 2011, 11:47:57 AM

Quote from: Hawker on November 09, 2011, 05:46:13 PM

Your father didn't make a will but before he died he promised the land to you. He also promised it to your sister.

Again there's no ethical dilemma in your example. That's just a problem for the heirs to solve.

An ethical compromise would be something on the lines of "I agree it's wrong to steal, but in this(these) case(s) it's not".

You are correct. Let's try a better example.

In Ireland we have a period of 30 years we called the Troubles. Terrorists killed unarmed people almost at will based on guessing their religion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shankill_Butchers

That gives you a flavour of what it was like. People pulled off the street, their teeth pulled out with pliers and then beaten to death.

In 1997 a deal was done that the terrorists would stop killing people and that the terrorists in jail would be released. In effect, an amnesty for kidnappers, torturers and murderers. Most Irish people hate the deal but voted for it anyway as it was preferable to continued violence. As a result, the killings went from 150 a year to none. In a small province of 1.5 million people, there are thousands alive today that would be dead were it not for that deal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Friday_Agreement

I think you will agree that was a moral compromise. Do you think we were wrong to accept that compromise?

Inedible

hero member

Activity: 700

Merit: 500

What doesn't kill you only makes you sicker!

Quote from: chickenado on November 10, 2011, 01:40:52 PM

A friend once told me, "Nature is murky and complex, therefore ethics has to be murky and complex. Everything in ethics is a grey area".

I don's see how the latter necessarily follows from the former. The whole point of ethics is that is not natural. It's a purely artificial, abstract set of rules created by humans. A bit like mathematics.

Besides, even the most "mature", "moderate", and "sober" individuals are idealistic teenage extremists on some issues. Usually the ones that have been resolved by said extremists in the distant past.

I have never met a "moderate" who isn't absolutist on the topics of slavery, women's suffrage, or racial segregation for instance. No stance other than Total Abolition is considered reasonable by them.

Are you saying those moderates should consider some slavery/some women having no rights/some racial segregation being allowable to be true moderates? Or are you saying that that a moderate's position is untenable if they hold any absolutist views?

Inedible

hero member

Activity: 700

Merit: 500

What doesn't kill you only makes you sicker!

Quote from: EhVedadoOAnonimato on November 10, 2011, 11:47:57 AM

Again there's no ethical dilemma in your example. That's just a problem for the heirs to solve.

An ethical compromise would be something on the lines of "I agree it's wrong to steal, but in this(these) case(s) it's not".

What of a situation where someone needs to steal to feed someone starving to death? Or steals medication to prevent imminent death? (e.g. anaphylactic shock)

In both cases, the thief is destitute and has no means to pay.

chickenado

hero member

Activity: 1036

Merit: 500

A friend once told me, "Nature is murky and complex, therefore ethics has to be murky and complex. Everything in ethics is a grey area".

I don's see how the latter necessarily follows from the former. The whole point of ethics is that is not natural. It's a purely artificial, abstract set of rules created by humans. A bit like mathematics.

Besides, even the most "mature", "moderate", and "sober" individuals are idealistic teenage extremists on some issues. Usually the ones that have been resolved by said extremists in the distant past.

I have never met a "moderate" who isn't absolutist on the topics of slavery, women's suffrage, or racial segregation for instance. No stance other than Total Abolition is considered reasonable by them.

EhVedadoOAnonimato

hero member

Activity: 630

Merit: 500

Quote from: Hawker on November 09, 2011, 05:46:13 PM

Your father didn't make a will but before he died he promised the land to you. He also promised it to your sister.

Again there's no ethical dilemma in your example. That's just a problem for the heirs to solve.

An ethical compromise would be something on the lines of "I agree it's wrong to steal, but in this(these) case(s) it's not".

EhVedadoOAnonimato

hero member

Activity: 630

Merit: 500

Quote from: Hawker on November 09, 2011, 05:00:15 PM

If you are on land that you believe you own and someone else believes is rightfully theirs, the choices are compromise (go to court) or violence (get a gun).

There's no ethical dilemma there. Actually, if they go to court, it might actually mean both have the correct ethical principles, i.e., both agree that the rightful owner should control the land. Who's the rightful owner is not an ethical question. The quote in OP refers to compromising regarding ethical principles. And I believe I agree with it. A compromise between ethically right and ethically wrong is comparable to a compromise between food and poison.

Jalum

hero member

Activity: 774

Merit: 500

Look ARROUND!

Hi Atlas, why the new identity?

ALPHA.

newbie

Activity: 42

Merit: 0

The father committed fraud by telling two they owned the same thing. That is not an invention but the truth. The only way to enforce property rights is aggression in any case. Persuasion is a voluntary transaction. It will not prevent evil from committing its deed.

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: ALPHA. on November 09, 2011, 06:19:50 PM

Quote from: Hawker on November 09, 2011, 05:55:54 PM

Quote from: ALPHA. on November 09, 2011, 05:52:27 PM

...snip...

Yes, it is a compromise as I said. It was a settlement of differences and not principles. Everybody ended up with the value they are entitled in the end.

The same logic does not apply to property rights. That requires sacrifice and loss.

You gave up the right to inherit your land, promised to you by your Dad. That is the sacrifice and loss of a property right.

No, it isn't. It was never truly mine to begin with. The claim was based on fraudulent premises. In truth, it belongs to me and my sister.

Now, if my sister were truly trying to steal my land, I would just give it to her; not out of sacrifice but out of the value she brings me. That is an exchange of value; not sacrifice.

The problem with your logic is you invented the fraud part.

As I said before, honest people do have disagreements and the alternative to violence is compromise.

ALPHA.

newbie

Activity: 42

Merit: 0

In summary, I believe a compromise cannot have sacrifice nor loss for either party. Such dealings only result in one winning over the other.

ALPHA.

newbie

Activity: 42

Merit: 0

Quote from: Hawker on November 09, 2011, 05:55:54 PM

Quote from: ALPHA. on November 09, 2011, 05:52:27 PM

...snip...

Yes, it is a compromise as I said. It was a settlement of differences and not principles. Everybody ended up with the value they are entitled in the end.

The same logic does not apply to property rights. That requires sacrifice and loss.

You gave up the right to inherit your land, promised to you by your Dad. That is the sacrifice and loss of a property right.

No, it isn't. It was never truly mine to begin with. The claim was based on fraudulent premises. In truth, it belongs to me and my sister.

Now, if my sister were truly trying to steal my land, I would just give it to her; not out of sacrifice but out of the value she brings me. That is an exchange of value; not sacrifice.

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: ALPHA. on November 09, 2011, 05:52:27 PM

...snip...

Yes, it is a compromise as I said. It was a settlement of differences and not principles. Everybody ended up with the value they are entitled in the end.

The same logic does not apply to property rights. That requires sacrifice and loss.

You gave up the right to inherit your land, promised to you by your Dad. That is the sacrifice and loss of a property right.

ALPHA.

newbie

Activity: 42

Merit: 0

Quote from: Hawker on November 09, 2011, 05:51:30 PM

Quote from: ALPHA. on November 09, 2011, 05:47:49 PM

Quote from: Hawker on November 09, 2011, 05:46:13 PM

Quote from: ALPHA. on November 09, 2011, 05:43:08 PM

I want Whataburger but Linda wants McDonalds. I compromise and go to McDonalds because it will still satisfy me. We are both happy and nobody truly sacrificed. That is a true compromise.

I want my land that has been passed down to me by my forefather's. The government wants part of it for its whims. I sacrifice a part of my land for nothing of value in return. That is not a compromise. That is a total loss for me since one cannot compromise on their right to property.

See the difference?

Your father didn't make a will but before he died he promised the land to you. He also promised it to your sister.

Are you seriously saying that compromise is bad and that you will kill your sister?

Can you see how stupid a worldview that is?

Nobody is in the right here. The father lied. My sister and I sharing the land is a compromise. We both get what we are entitled.

I stand by all of my contentions.

Actually that's a compromise. You started with an inheritance you were promised and agreed to share it rather than kill your sister.

Welcome to the real world. You will find the same logic applies to things like land ownership, security deposits on leases (really I've spent years arguing with tenants over the damn things) and the correct level of taxation.

Yes, it is a compromise as I said. It was a settlement of differences and not principles. Everybody ended up with the value they are entitled in the end.

The same logic does not apply to property rights. That requires sacrifice and loss.

Topic: The Myth of Compromise (Read 4196 times)