I will not repeat the introduction to the “umbrella” topic above other than to acknowledge, again, my indebtedness to my friend, David Johnson, for pressing me to explore this subject that I introduced in my last blog post on Community. I do want to make it clear that he bears no responsibility for directions I have taken, the opinions I have expressed, or the conclusions I have drawn.

            That said, and having given my best effort to covering the first two topics: What Constitutes Compromise – “Middle” Ground or “Common” Ground? and The Relationship of Compromise to the Principles Crucial to our Integrity, we move now to the third topic:

III. The Importance of Knowing When We Will and Won’t Compromise

            We have necessarily toyed with this topic several times in its connection to other concerns surrounding the practice of compromise. Carrie Menkel-Meadow, quoted in the previous post, states the significance of this issue thoroughly but concisely:

“We should learn to consider. . . not only when we should not compromise to preserve our integrity . . ., but when we should compromise (on) . . . the possibility that we may not be the only one who is morally, politically, or socially right.”

Interestingly, she not only cites the connection of this decision to our integrity—and thus to our principles, which we have explored—but also raises a thoughtful caveat which I have not addressed: a humble awareness that others may be able to make a case as strong as our own.

So maybe we should explore how and why we find ourselves in a situation where a “standoff” disagreement has happened or appears about to happen. A question we clearly should ask, “off the top,” is how important the issue is to you, personally. Perhaps it’s because it simply “pushes a button”

• on something you find of interest,
• or something that is integral to one your “principals,”
• or something you know to be important to someone in your family,
• or important in the community of which you are a part, or might be an issue in an even larger context.

 But once you are “there,” the question persists, should I stay in this conversation that might, or might not, lead to a compromise?

            Tess Pajaron suggested in an article (see Sources Consulted) four questions one should ask to help decide when to compromise—or not. I offer them here, with a few additions and caveats of my own, for your consideration.

• The first question she suggests is “Has this situation arisen before?”  The point is that if you keep “finding yourself in the same conflict situation, you really need to question whether compromise is the best approach.” If an underlying issue is solved “only temporarily” by earlier compromises, it is clearly fair to suspect that the “heart of the problem” has not been addressed and until it is, another attempt at compromise will provide only a temporary and “uneasy truce.”
• In the second question, she raises the issue we addressed at the end of the previous topic—the crucial importance of trust: “Does the other person respect the fact that I’m making a compromise?” Unless you can trust that all parties are “putting (their) own needs and desires to one side in favor of the common good,” then the basic requirements of a sound compromise are unlikely to be fulfilled.
• The next question is straightforward and crucial: “Ask yourself what will happen if you say no and refuse to compromise.” I would suggest what seems to me the natural progression, and that is to ask that same question of each or all of the parties confronting the issue at the heart of the disagreement. What you hear may be clear enough to “put a button” on a decision not to compromise or, on the contrary, open the door to possibility.
• Instead of a fourth question, she posits that “There are certain things you should never compromise on.” She terms these as “non-negotiable issues” which she describes as “the things that are fundamental to your sense of self and your principles.” She argues that if the conflict centers around one of these, you shouldn’t give in, but “instead you should try to explain why this particular issue is so important to you and reaffirm how you intend to approach it.” While I would agree that this last statement is accurate and appropriate if you have decided not to compromise, I would take issue with her initial statement and rephrase it something like this: There are certain things involving one’s principles on which you should not compromise, usually. That point of view is based in part on what has already been said in previous posts and will become clearer in what remains to be said in the next post dealing with ethical norms.
• Finally, Ms. Pajaron asserts that “Compromise isn’t always the answer.” She bases the statement on a particular view of what constitutes a “healthy” compromise—defined as when “both people are prepared to both give and take”—which is a good way to resolve conflict. Unhealthy compromise, on the other hand, “where one person is repeatedly giving in, is likely to create long-term problems.” I don’t disagree with what she has said, but I would suggest that there are probably more definitions and examples of what constitutes healthy or unhealthy compromises, just as there are more examples of situations in which “compromise isn’t the answer”—think of her own examples of situations unresolved by repeated attempts at compromise, others where a lack of trust exists between the parties in disagreement, or where someone’s integrity has been compromised, etc.

In the arena of healthy compromises, my friend, Joel Stegall, proposed an example which, with his permission, I have borrowed in an abbreviated and slightly modified version. Suppose the music department wants more money in its budget, but so does every other department. One approach is linear, and polarized—simply yes or no. “Or, following the same linearity, give the department a little bit of what it wants, saving some for others.” (Half a loaf is better than none, as Hubert Humphrey was alleged to have said.) But there may be other more creative approaches: the music department could start charging for concerts, applied music fees could be increased, programs with low enrollment might be dropped or enrollments increased. Or external funding might be sought. This is where creative options may be better than linear ones. In Joel’s innovative metaphor, which I have referenced before, “between black and white is not gray, but a vast array of colors.”

And just so we know that this isn’t a door that easily “slams shut,” Carrie Menkel-Meadow noted that President Obamasaid in a speech on listening and compromise in 2016 that “it is better to get something and then try to improve on it in iterative negotiations, than to get nothing at all.” Nevertheless, she also insists that the “ethics” of compromise requires a consideration of when it is “good” to compromise and when it might be “wrong,” because “What is compromised . . . is highly situational.”  Stay tuned for a reemergence of that notion in the next section.

With that—and an acknowledgement, without apology actually, that there is a raft of things left unsaid on this subject—I will avoid the temptation to be exhaustive, expecting to hear from you a sigh of relief, and move us on—in the next and last post—to the last topic in this “forever” blog!

Ethical Norms That Determine Whether and How We Compromise

I hope you’ll “hang in there” for the final journey!

Sources Consulted

“Valuing Compromise for the Common Good,” Amy Gutmann and Dennis F. Thompson. Daedalus, Spring 2013.

“Integrity: the virtue of compromise,” Jeremy Schwartz, Palgrave Communications, Article number: 16085, November 29, 2016.

”Ethics of Compromise,” Carrie Menkel-Meadow, Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016, A. Farazmand (ed.), Global Encyclopedia of Public Administration, Public Policy, and Governance, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-31816-5_2380-1.

“The Mindsets of Political Compromise.” Amy Gutmann and Dennis Thompson, American Political Science Association, 2010.

“Our divided times are an opportunity for empathy. Really.” Jamil Zaki, Robb Willer, Jan Gerrit Voelkel, and Luiza Santos. Op ed, Washington Post, 12/29/2020.

“Build on Common Ground,” Editorial Board, op.ed., NY Times, Dec. 12, 2020.

“How to Know When to Compromise: 4 Key Questions to Ask,” Tess Pajaron, Goalcast, July 28, 2017.

“Common Ground and Common Good,” H.B. Gelatt, Positive Uncertainty, August 16, 2015,

“Does Common Ground Require Agreeing on the Common Good?” Common Ground Committee, February 28, 2018.

“On the possibility of principled moral compromise,” Daniel Weinstock. Published online: Sept. 2, 2013.