Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

Missouri compromise.

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

Compromise of 1850. --- United States.

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

Compromise (Ethics) --- Compromis (Morale) --- Social aspects. --- Aspect social

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

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.

Compromise (Ethics) --- Political science --- Political philosophy --- Ethics --- Philosophy. --- Compromise (Ethics). --- Political philosophy. Social philosophy --- General ethics --- Philosophy

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

Why is today's political life so polarized? This book analyzes the ways in which the divergent apprehensions of both 'compromise' and the 'people' in seventeenth-century England and France became intertwined once again during the American founding, sometimes with bloody results. Looking at key-moments of the founding, from the first Puritan colonies to the beginning of the Civil War, this book offers answers of contemporary relevance. It argues that Americans unknowingly combined two understandings of the people: the early modern idea of a collection of individuals ruled by a majority of wills and the classic understanding of a corporation hierarchically structured and ruled by reason for the common good. Americans were then able to implement the paradigm of the 'people's two bodies'. Whenever the dialectic between the two has been broken, the results had have a major impact on American politics. Born by accident, this American peculiarity has proven to be a long-lasting one.

Political culture --- Compromise (Ethics) --- Ethics --- History. --- Political aspects --- United States --- Politics and government --- Philosophy.