Edit Compromise and Obedience

Arguments for Compromise and Obedience

For Compromise: 

Compromise is any method or mechanism for resolving disagreement in a group decision-making situation toward a group decision.

There are, of course good and bad compromises. 

I argue that compromise is an unconditional virtue of social morality in that without the universal willingness to compromise, groups could not reliably make decisions,

thus human socialness would fail, as groups by their inaction would cease to exist. 

The argument for this could be charted as follows: 

1. Whatever disposition is without exception indispensable for successful human socialness, i.e. group action is an unconditional virtue of social morality.

2.. The universal willingness to compromise is a disposition without exception  indispensable for successful human socialness, i.e. group action. 

C. Compromise is an unconditional virtue. 

Could a similar argument could be made for obedience? The catch is, we'd have to leave room for civil disobedience:

1. Whatever disposition is without exception indispensable for successful human socialness, i.e. group action is an unconditional virtue of social morality. 

2. Obedience is a disposition which, with the sole exception of the obligation to disobey unjust orders in a self-sacrifical manner, is indispensable for successful human socialness, i.e. group action. 

3. But  the obligation to disobey unjust orders in a self-sacrifical manner is itself a form of obedience (e.g. to a higher authority, or as subjugation of one's individual will will to the good of the group, etc.)

4. If 1,2, and 3, then obedience is an unconditional virtue of social morality. 

C. Obedience is an unconditional virtue of social morality. 

Recall that our definition of obedience is the subjugation of the individual will to the will of the group, for the sake of the group.