Question

Peace with the other side

“We should always seek to compromise” say many people who want peace. However, is compromise always a virtuous choice? I will prove that while compromise has its place, at times it can be the enemy of all. There is a much better choice called synergy.

First, let’s address synergy. Synergy, also called “win-win”, is a strategy that focuses on commonalities among all principal parties. The way ahead is built based upon critical common ground. This should be the starting point to negotiate lasting peace.

Compromise is a strategy that focuses on the issues that separate the parties. This is a more convoluted strategy that can be characterized as “lose-lose”. This strategy has its place as well, but only if the differences at issue are honestly and accurately prioritized and if both sides are willing to make concessions. As a strategy, it requires concessions to be made on both sides; concessions where the least strongly held issues are surrendered first in exchange for the adversary’s concession of the first party’s higher priority issue. It requires that there are some (if not all) issues that are not as important to one party as they are to the other. This strategy has many weaknesses (e.g. requires honestly weighted/prioritized differences; requires adversaries’ willingness to surrender sufficiently high priorities; requires both sides to feel that their adversary has suffered sufficient loss in comparison to their own loss; etc...)

Defined in this way, it becomes clear that synergy should always be sought before compromise. Synergy allows more transparency and makes some degree of success more likely. These successes can be built upon. After achieving an acceptable level of success using the strategy of “synergy first”, it MAY be necessary and even advantageous to use the secondary strategy of compromise in order to solidify a lasting peace.

I could give examples when the different strategies should or shouldn’t be used, but that is a topic for later discussion.

Daveclark5 8

Answer 1

Over the decades conservatives and Christians have just about compromised themselves out of existence.

Answer 2

#Balkanization is the answer. #PeacefulPartion ✌🕊☮

Answer 3

The problem is not so much with compromise itself. The real problem is people do not understand the definition of the word. Compromise means both sides give a little to get a little. Today compromise means one side screams and rants, protests, and riots until the other makes a "compromise" by giving them exactly what they want while they give nothing in return, but only go on to the next thing they want a "compromise" on.

Answer 4

I agree. Synergy would be best, but off course America has passed that point. As for as compromise goes, no one is really forcing the fanatics on the left to negotiating table. They keep asking for more absurd demands and in the more and more aggressive way and they keep getting them. Why would they stop?

Fanaticism consists of redoubling your effort when you have forgotten your aim.
—George Santayana (1863–1952)

From "we want equality" to "we want to burn Western civilization", they say. This is religious fundamentalism, terrorist style. How do you shake hands with clench fist? Curious what kind of compromise you had in mind?


Author	Author:
Type of abuse	I think this violates the community guidelines. Chat or rant, adult content, spam, insulting other members I think this is illegal. Harm to minors, violence or threats, harassment or privacy invasion, impersonation or misrepresentation, fraud or phishing, etc.
Additional Details If Needed

Chat room is open

Post a comment Author doesn't reply Reply Author doesn't reply Add Photo

Be part of the movement!

4 comments

Recent Visitors 21

Photos 11,819 More

Members 9,403Top

Moderators

Related GroupsMore