3 ms·

I don't think compromise itself is a reaffirmation of our values. Compromise often erodes values. Disagreement prioritizes values. I think generally we have th

I don't think compromise itself is a reaffirmation of our values. Compromise often erodes values. Disagreement prioritizes values. I think generally we have the same values. Honesty, transparency, integrity, expediency, travel, etc. However what we don't share is priority of them. To the author's point, do you value having pets more than you value freedom to travel? Reasonable people could disagree. And there is compromise to be had, but if you're not careful you can get the worst of both worlds by trying to split the difference.

kardianos 3y ago
I think the author's point is that reality has limits. Sometimes you can have your cake and eat it too, but often, a person must choose only one of many things they value. I believe the author's point is that the necessity of choice demonstrates what they really value. Utopia is no place. Reality is limited. Choose wisely.
- mindvirus 3y ago
  Totally, but the bad compromise that I think many people find themselves in is regretting having pets because they can't travel, and regretting not traveling because they have pets. Whereas good compromise could be deciding not to have pets but volunteering at the local animal shelter (for example).
gspencley 3y ago
There are different meanings of the word "compromise." Integrity can be "compromised", be it physical integrity (the structural support of the building was compromised and so it collapsed) or moral integrity (their values were compromised and they did a bad thing). But compromise can also be a concession in pursuit of a value. My wife and I want to go see a movie. I want to see a horror and she wants to see a romcom. So we compromise and see something that was not a first choice for either of us but that we're both happy with since the superior value being sought was spending time together. The specific movie was a secondary value. In this second context case I disagree that compromise CREATES value, but after I read the blog I realized that the author didn't even mean what the title literally says. The author is saying that it is difficult for someone to have NO values (in a literal sense this would have to be a very depressed individual who is contemplating suicide since they do not even value their own life). But that some people move through life mindlessly and aimlessly, oblivious to what they value. So much so that they do not consciously value anything. And so once such an individual is "forced" to make compromises then the recognition of values is then forced. I suppose the author's thesis is that forcing a recognition of values could lead to the adoption of values previously unconsidered.
JohnFen 3y ago
Compromise is a method of ensuring that nobody is entirely happy or unhappy.

kardianos 3y ago

I think the author's point is that reality has limits. Sometimes you can have your cake and eat it too, but often, a person must choose only one of many things they value. I believe the author's point is that the necessity of choice demonstrates what they really value. Utopia is no place. Reality is limited. Choose wisely.

mindvirus 3y ago
Totally, but the bad compromise that I think many people find themselves in is regretting having pets because they can't travel, and regretting not traveling because they have pets. Whereas good compromise could be deciding not to have pets but volunteering at the local animal shelter (for example).

gspencley 3y ago

There are different meanings of the word "compromise." Integrity can be "compromised", be it physical integrity (the structural support of the building was compromised and so it collapsed) or moral integrity (their values were compromised and they did a bad thing). But compromise can also be a concession in pursuit of a value. My wife and I want to go see a movie. I want to see a horror and she wants to see a romcom. So we compromise and see something that was not a first choice for either of us but that we're both happy with since the superior value being sought was spending time together. The specific movie was a secondary value. In this second context case I disagree that compromise CREATES value, but after I read the blog I realized that the author didn't even mean what the title literally says. The author is saying that it is difficult for someone to have NO values (in a literal sense this would have to be a very depressed individual who is contemplating suicide since they do not even value their own life). But that some people move through life mindlessly and aimlessly, oblivious to what they value. So much so that they do not consciously value anything. And so once such an individual is "forced" to make compromises then the recognition of values is then forced. I suppose the author's thesis is that forcing a recognition of values could lead to the adoption of values previously unconsidered.

JohnFen 3y ago

Compromise is a method of ensuring that nobody is entirely happy or unhappy.