Close

Not a member yet? Register now and get started.

lock and key

Sign in to your account.

Account Login

Forgot your password?

Is The Process Of Compromising In Order To Reach An Agreement

11 Dec Posted by in Uncategorized | Comments
Is The Process Of Compromising In Order To Reach An Agreement

Compromise is a fundamental negotiation process in which both parties give up what they want to get something else they want more. Compromise usually occurs in win-lose situations — when there is a solid cake that needs to be divided, and everything one of them gets, the other side loses. In compromised situations, neither side gets everything they really want, but they make each concession to reach a mutually acceptable agreement. Dialectical theories of reasoning and reasoning tend to prefer the language of commitment (or verbal acceptance) to the language of faith (or spiritual acceptance) (Godden 2010: 399ff.). At least part of this reason seems to lie in the fact that commitments that are external are easier to pursue and hold others to account. However, the point raised here does not call for any particular interest in the unarticulate psychological dimensions of the argument. Rather, it is the athletic orientation of attitudes or proposition obligations (whether through public or non-public speech acts) that are at stake in the reasoning. The assertion that p, for example, expresses his commitment to the truth of p. Normally, this is understood as a doxastic obligation – as the expression of one`s own faith, the p. Faith can therefore be understood for the purposes of this discussion as an alethical commitment – for example.

B, commitments (perhaps domestic) that are rightly criticized and which should be qualified or withdrawn to the extent that they are not true. An epistemical concern in the adoption of dialectic is the language of commitment and not that of faith (outsourced), not to the point of neglecting the internal and psychological dimension of reasoning and argumentation (although this is a normative concern; see Godden (2010) but to have been applied in a way that obscures or neglects thetalation orientation of much of our discourse. , rather than acceptance or agreement, to make their rightful place as a standard of discursive. Indeed, one could explain tendencies to discursive shifts, as they are sanctioned by permissive policy, such as the approval of the truth or the rational acceptance of what has been agreed. It may be necessary to “agree” on certain points when the dispute seems intractable and the reality is that they do not reach full agreement. Consent to disagreement is more often necessary in cases of disagreement over values or principles, not facts or methods. If both parties are able to listen and try to respectfully understand the position of the opposing party, they can often accept their disagreements.

 

Comments are closed.