Philosophy of compromise

The Philosophy of Compromise explores how we live with the contradictions between our principles and our daily actions. Rather than morally judging this cognitive dissonance, I propose to see it as an essential component of our complex humanity.

Ecologists at the Gas Pump

• The owner of this Tesla parked on the street may not be a supporter of Elon Musk or Donald Trump.
• The person filling their car with gas this morning is probably not advocating for the destruction of the planet. Maybe even this person recycles and feels committed to environmentalism.
• How can one simultaneously criticize social media and spend hours on Instagram?

How do we reconcile the contradictions between our thoughts and our actions? It is through an exercise of compromise that we manage to live in this state of cognitive dissonance. In other words, I believe we all assume that we are compromised, or rather that we compromise ourselves. We simply accept it to be able to live, to avoid self-reproach. I propose to explore the intricacies of this compromise because, at first glance, I judge it as guilty.

Good or Bad Compromises?

Is there a line between a good and a bad compromise? This question is almost scandalous because, in principle, compromise is something bad since it is the negation of one’s own values. And yet, all of us assume our compromises, and even more so our compromises. It’s not just about assuming a paradox; we assume the evil within us. To assume doing wrong, not in the name of good, but to assume that doing wrong is part of us, and therefore there is no need to feel guilty for doing wrong. How is this possible? Why do we do it?

For example, during the Covid period, in the name of good, in the name of humanistic values, many people publicly engaged in scapegoating. At the beginning of the crisis, it was the reckless youth. Then it was the unvaccinated, deemed dangerous to their peers, who no longer deserved to be treated or to be part of the human regime. As such, they could be confined, banned from participating in social and professional life, like unvaccinated healthcare workers who were suspended for two years, meaning not fired, but without access to unemployment benefits.

How, in the name of humanism, could people assume the dehumanization of a portion of humanity? Well, it was precisely through an exercise in compromise: doing wrong in the name of good. This is the very principle of war, which can be deemed necessary to build peace, even though war is precisely the opposite of peace. This is why Gandhi’s approaches, based on nonviolent actions, seem more coherent, less compromising than violent approaches.

And yet, in a situation of self-defense, for example, one might judge it mandatory to compromise by using violence. I think that is likely, if they were sincere, what the people felt who, during the Covid period, dehumanized the youth and then the unvaccinated. They were convinced it was for the good of humanity, but in doing so, they compromised, as I wrote earlier, with dehumanization, which is the opposite of the values they defended. A vast paradox.

For a Radical Philosophy, Beyond Moralism

So, is it good or bad to compromise? The purpose of this essay is not to pass moral judgment on compromise, because I fundamentally believe that we all use compromise to organize our actions, to justify them, and that this compromise is very often unconscious. And that is why, in my opinion, it deserves to be explored with a philosophical rather than a moral lens.

I should clarify that, for me, philosophy is the art of questioning the foundations of our thoughts, not a tool for judging the actions of others. The development of concepts is the work of philosophy, in my view, in line with what Gilles Deleuze said about it. It is an exercise in illumination that each person will then use in their own way.

Therefore, the question I pose is not: “How could he compromise? How could I compromise? How can I stop compromising?” But rather: “How does the concept of compromise work?” Perhaps, in the future, to better understand my inner world and the world around me, by moving beyond judgment, because judgment obscures.

A clear, sharp, radical thought, as Marie-Josée Mondzain says, is an open thought, aware of its enemies and their viewpoints. Whereas consensual thought is based on the lie that there is some form of objectivity or neutrality of perspective. This is false. In reality, consensus is in itself already a form of radicality. We are all in radical viewpoints that form our identities.

But then, how can we compromise so much and so often? How is it that compromise is so intrinsic to our ability to live? And how can we look at ourselves in the mirror, love ourselves, if we are aware of our unawareness?

Perhaps compromise is that pact with the devil that is the spark of life. This paradox between life and death, this “quantum” link between origin and end. And yet, we wish to compromise as little as possible, we wish to live with more morality. This is a political stance, an injunction we place on ourselves, precisely to be able to look at ourselves in the mirror. This is very paradoxical.

But if we truly looked at ourselves, no one could bear the gaze of this ignoble being in the mirror who compromises at every turn, who flouts their principles constantly. That is why I propose an exploration beyond political judgment, to better understand the intricacies of the necessity of compromise, and perhaps not to act better, but to act as oneself, and perhaps to assume the wrong, to go beyond hypocrisy, and in doing so, to move psychically in clearer and more assumed spaces.

Compromise as a Condition of Existence

Here is the concept I propose: what obscures our vision of the reasons for our compromise is a Western representation of ourselves as a unique being. If we saw ourselves as a system of interactions between our organs, cells, neurons, these millions of autonomous microorganisms that interact within us to constitute us; that is, no longer as a unique person, but as a set of complementary forces, constantly negotiating, as ultimately a democratic space made of debates, contradictions, compromises, paradoxes, frustrations, if we envisioned ourselves as this perpetual battlefield, then we would move beyond this self-guilt for being too compromised, for not being pure enough.

This guilt unfortunately leads to the denial of our understanding, that is, the denial of our compromise. And so, we lie to ourselves. We make ourselves believe that we are not as compromised as that. And even, in fact, that we are quite consistent. This is where the danger lies, philosophically and politically, in my opinion. Because, to tell ourselves our own story, we lie to ourselves.

And thus, we are like a blind pilot trying to hold a course with no awareness of the obstacles around us, or within us. And in doing so, we act in a way that is very dangerous for ourselves and for others. To return to the example of Covid, it is now proven that lockdown was not useful in containing the transmission of the virus, that young people were not dangerous to the elderly, and that vaccines never protected against transmission, so the unvaccinated were no more dangerous to others than the vaccinated, and often less so, since they were more cautious; in short, all this social violence, supported by compromise, only caused harm.

The Resolution of Compromise

So if, on the other hand, we sought to embrace our own internal systemic complexity, and became certain that we are not just one person, but a set of internal elements, opposing one another, which are forced, for us to exist, to compromise constantly, then we would understand that our very existence is a compromise. A vast and permanent compromise. That we inherently do as much wrong as good, to ourselves and to others.

Thus, we would move beyond moral judgment on compromise. We would better understand why it is so present, why it is so scandalous. But instead of judging it by moral criteria, we would understand that it is life itself. And that if we wish to move towards our morality, the path is undoubtedly more about exploring our inconsistencies, looking at our contradictions with lucidity, without judgment.

The philosophical stance on compromise that I propose is rather to recognize our intrinsic compromises, to look at them in their diversity, and to understand that they are an integral part of our existence, if not the very source of it. This is undoubtedly the space of our free will, through a better awareness of who we are. We can then strive, through less lying, towards better moral choices, better because more nuanced.