Compromise, Negotiation and Morality
Negotiation Journal, Vol. 26, pp. 483-499, October 2010
18 Pages Posted: 17 Oct 2010 Last revised: 21 Oct 2010
Abstract
This review essay (on Avishai Margalit’s new book On Compromise and Rotten Compromises) discusses the philosophical, moral, ethical and practical dimensions of negotiating with “evil” geo-political partners (those who would establish or maintain inhumane regimes) or those who would do evil things. Although compromise is often thought of as unprincipled and amoral, if not immoral, this essay discusses the moral justifications for some compromises, separating out different categories of permissible, justifiable, or immoral and unjustifiable promises. Although Margalit focuses primarily on macro, large geopolitical negotiations, this essay applies thinking about compromise and morality to more everyday and “micro” negotiations as well. Since compromises often give us some peace, if not full, justice, when are we justified in compromising? What does it mean to “compromise” with those who might be evil, or seek to do evil things? When should we walk away? When can't we walk away?
Keywords: Negotiation, Compromise, Morality, Ethics
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation
Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?
Recommended Papers
-
Peace and Justice: Notes on the Evolution and Purposes of Legal Processes
-
The Discourse Beneath: Emotional Epistemology in Legal Deliberation and Negotiation
By Erin Ryan
-
Is the Adversary System Really Dead? Dilemmas of Legal Ethics as Legal Institutions and Roles Evolve
-
Why Hasn't the World Gotten to Yes? An Appreciation and Some Reflections
-
Heuristics and Biases at the Bargaining Table
By Russell B. Korobkin and Chris Guthrie
-
Building the Emotionally Learned Negotiator
By Erin Ryan
-
Teaching Law Students How to Feel: Using Negotiations Training to Increase Emotional Intelligence
By Peter Reilly