Status
Call number
Publication
Description
When is political compromise acceptable--and when is it fundamentally rotten, something we should never accept, come what may? What if a rotten compromise is politically necessary? Compromise is a great political virtue, especially for the sake of peace. But, as Avishai Margalit argues, there are moral limits to acceptable compromise even for peace. But just what are those limits? At what point does peace secured with compromise become unjust? Focusing attention on vitally important questions that have received surprisingly little attention, Margalit argues that we should be concerned not only with what makes a just war, but also with what kind of compromise allows for a just peace. Examining a wide range of examples, including the Munich Agreement, the Yalta Conference, and Arab-Israeli peace negotiations, Margalit provides a searching examination of the nature of political compromise in its various forms. Combining philosophy, politics, and history, and written in a vivid and accessible style, On Compromise and Rotten Compromises is full of surprising new insights about war, peace, justice, and sectarianism.… (more)
User reviews
The standard format for a philosophical argument on this subject would be to first provide a theory of compromise and then explore its implications with well-chosen examples. The author takes care of the theoretical part reasonably well in chapter 2, "Varieties of Compromise", but the examples lack depth. The author focuses almost exclusively on peace agreements in the second world war, particularly agreements with Hitler and Stalin. He does work this example from many interesting angles, and it allows him to think about compromises with different kinds of evil.
But I would have preferred a broader variety of practical examples. In the second half of the book the author tries to deepen his one example by discussing the clause "come what may" at length and by reiterating that sectarian thinking, which by definition rules out compromise, is incompatible with compromise. These are not very interesting viewpoints, and they don't really add much to what was said in the first half of the book. I think a more varied palette of historical examples could have said more about how moral consequences can be weighted, especially in the face of uncertain information.