compromise...
There can be no compromise on basic principles. There can be no compromise on moral issues. There can be no compromise on matters of knowledge, of truth, of rational conviction.
Ayn RandFavorite
Ayn Rand (1988). “The Ayn Rand Lexicon: Objectivism from A to Z”, p.101, Penguin
Ayn RandFavorite
Ayn Rand (1988). “The Ayn Rand Lexicon: Objectivism from A to Z”, p.101, Penguin
Let’s set the record straight. There is no argument over the choice between peace and war, but there is only one guaranteed way you can have peace–and you can have it in the next second–surrender.
Admittedly there is a risk in any course we follow other than this, but every lesson in history tells us that the greater risk lies in appeasement, and this is the specter our well-meaning liberal friends refuse to face–that their policy of accommodation is appeasement, and it gives no choice between peace and war, only between fight and surrender. If we continue to accommodate, continue to back and retreat, eventually we have to face the final demand–the ultimatum. And what then?
No. Better dead than red. You go to hell . . . first.
.
Truth is singular.
https://youtu.be/2kuQ29uGr-k
(Note that hubris can also mean bowing to the woke mob.)
We compromise/negotiate all of the time. When I quote a project at $100k and the client disagrees, and we SETTLE on an agreed upon price of $80k... We say a compromise was found.
In some cases, they cannot have what was originally offered. To me, that give and take, is the true essence of compromise. As the CREATOR, I cannot also dictate value or requirement. The CLIENT gets his say.
Here is the rub. When it comes to "VALUES" not deliverables, I believe you are right.
One must NOT compromise their values, morals, or their NATURE. For example, if they demand a lesser implementation, I may NOT WARRANTY the work. If they do it my way, I will usually give some kind of warranty of correctness. I cannot do that if they "FORCED" a cheaper implementation path. THAT would compromise my values, and my business...
I remember shoveling snow. The neighbor wanted the FULL SIDEWALK (not a shovel wide path). We charged him extra! (It's extra work). Both parties gave. This is the GOOD kind of compromise.
Is there another word for this NEGOTIATED TERM(S)?
To me, compromise has two distinct and almost contradictory definitions. The English language plays fast and loose in many instances and this is one of them. In one sense - as you point out - compromise could be better spelled co-promise: both parties agree and commit to a course of action. One can argue that this kind of deal-making sometimes involves adjustments and finagling. The primary focus of such discussions is about the accomplishment of a task and its correlating compensation.
In the other - which is almost always how I use it with regard to politics - is the one-sided "compromise" demanded by the Democrats. A better term there is capitulation, because it always seems to be non-Leftists being pressured to give in to the demands of Leftists. This is where morals and ethics come to the forefront because the topic of governance is primarily one of ethics, not about tasks and recompense. In the halls of government, nearly every question is one of ethics and moral foundations, with a secondary focus being outcomes.
I agree: you cannot argue the mom's right to choose while ignoring the babies right to be born! (That would be an IRRATIONAL CONVICTION).
But bear in mind, people have multiple places where COMPROMISE is used, and I find it insightful to be able to EXPLAIN the difference.
I will NOT compromise the definition of CHILD for AGE of CONSENT so pedophiles cannot be arrested! Nor will I compromise someone by FORCING their speech! (pronouns!)