Catalogue Search | MBRL
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
{{itemTitle}}
401
result(s) for
"Compromise (Ethics)"
Sort by:
The spirit of compromise
If politics is the art of the possible, then compromise is the artistry of democracy. Unless one partisan ideology holds sway over all branches of government, compromise is necessary to govern for the benefit of all citizens. A rejection of compromise biases politics in favor of the status quo, even when the rejection risks crisis. Why then is compromise so difficult in American politics today?
InThe Spirit of Compromise, eminent political thinkers Amy Gutmann and Dennis Thompson connect the rejection of compromise to the domination of campaigning over governing--the permanent campaign---in American democracy today. They show that campaigning for political office calls for a mindset that blocks compromise--standing tenaciously on principle to mobilize voters and mistrusting opponents in order to defeat them. Good government calls for an opposite cluster of attitudes and arguments--the compromising mindset--that inclines politicians to adjust their principles and to respect their opponents. It is a mindset that helps politicians appreciate and take advantage of opportunities for desirable compromise.
Gutmann and Thompson explore the dynamics of these mindsets by comparing the historic compromises on tax reform under President Reagan in 1986 and health care reform under President Obama in 2010. Both compromises were difficult to deliver but only tax reform was bipartisan. Drawing lessons from these and other important compromises--and failures to compromise--in American politics, Gutmann and Thompson propose changes in our political institutions, processes, and mindsets that would encourage a better balance between campaigning and governing.
Calling for greater cooperation in contemporary politics,The Spirit of Compromisewill interest all who care about whether their government leaders can work together.
eBook
On compromise and rotten compromises
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.
eBook
Decoding Land Use Discretion
The housing shortage and affordability crisis have elicited calls for a reappraisal of the allocation of zoning power between state and local governments. Although scholars have given significant attention to potential legal reforms, there has been little discussion of the local administration of zoning codes. Over the course of the twentieth century, local governments embraced more flexible approaches to regulating land use, allowing regulations to adjust to changing conditions and demands and local governments to extract benefits from new development. This flexibility relies in part on the exercise of discretion by administrative agencies, most notably zoning boards of appeal. Flexibility and the exercise of discretion are not without costs, particularly in terms of predictability. They also frequently lead zoning boards to ignore relevant legal standards and exceed the scope of their delegated authority.
Journal Article
Compromise : a political and philosophical history
\"This book offers a conceptual history of compromise that demonstrates the connection between different understandings of compromise and corresponding differences in understandings of political representation\"-- Provided by publisher.
Book
Compromise
A distinguished group of scholars explores compromise in contemporary affairs Do lawmakers have a greater ethical responsibility to compromise than ordinary citizens? How does one rectify what is at stake when lawmakers concede to compromise for the sake of reaching resolution? Is compromise necessarily equalizing and is it a reasonable mode of problem solving and dispute resolution? In this latest installment from the NOMOS series, distinguished scholars across the fields of political science, law, and philosophy tackle the complex set of questions that relate to the practice of compromise and its implications for social and political life in modern societies.
The volume, edited by Jack Knight, brings together a range of perspectives - in both disciplinary and substantive terms - on representation, political morality, disagreement, negotiation, and various forms of compromise. The ten essays reflect a variety of considerations across interdisciplinary lines, and provide a new and thought-provoking discussion of the policy, practice, and philosophy of compromise, covering a number of specific topics including alternative dispute resolution (ADR) and conscientious objection.
Examining these issues and more, Compromise offers new and thought provoking insights into the pressing issue of the importance of compromise in social and political affairs.
eBook
Bookie & Cookie
When their usual routine is disrupted, Bookie and Cookie, best friends who live on opposite pages, learn to bridge their differences and explore new experiences together.
BOOK
III—On Principled Compromise
Processes of transitional justice (for instance, amnesty, truth commissions, reparations, trials) deal with large-scale wrongdoing committed during extended periods of conflict or repression. This paper discusses three common moral objections to processes of transitional justice, which I label shaking hands with the devil, selling victims short, and entrenching the status quo. Given the scale of wrongdoing and the context in which transitional justice processes are adopted, compromise is necessary. To respond to these objections, I argue, it is necessary to articulate the conditions that make a compromise principled. I defend three criteria that distinguish principled from unprincipled compromises.
Journal Article