Bargaining with the devil
John Perry

22 October 2010

我们节目的名字，“与魔鬼讨价还价”，应该让人想起讨价还价和妥协的问题。这些都是好事，几乎涉及到所有合作和富有成效的行为。每个人都必须讨价还价。即使是独裁者也需要与其他独裁者和国家元首讨价还价。

But there are times when we shouldn't compromise because basic principles are involved; and there are issues that we shouldn't bargain about. Or so it seems.

Still, even when you are completely right about an important principle, can't the situation you are in force you to compromise? Bernard Williams imagined the following. You are an anthropologist in some country wracked by revolution. One group or another comes in to the village in which you work and rounds up all 15 males. The leader says they will execute them all. You protest. He says, “Fine. If you will shoot the first one we will let the other ones go.” He hands you the gun. What do you do? Surely, in some sense, it is wrong to bargain with murderers about who gets murdered. And it's completely contrary to your principles to kill an innocent person. But if you don't bargain, and act contrary to your principles, 14 extra innocent men will die.

Of course ethical theories may dictate one course or the other. The utilitarian says shoot. The Kantian, I assume, says not to. But recently philosophers like Avishai Margalit have suggested that instead of focusing on theoretical ideals, a useful ethical and political theory needs to start by considering the rights and wrongs of compromise; Rawls may tell us what an ideal group of reasoners in an original position would come up with as a just society; Nozick may tell us who would own what in the extremely counterfactual situation in which we could start with legitimate cases of ownership. But in the real world people have things; nations control territories; societies are ruled by various combinations of laws and principles; and the political actor is never faced with choosing an ideal but rather with making the best out of a messy and unjust situation.

History abounds with leaders who had to compromise with evil. Churchill refused to negotiate with Hitler. But he did negotiate with Stalin, agreeing to the forced repatriation of dissident Soviet refugees among other things. Our nation was founded on compromise. Many of our founding fathers, not only those from the northern states, but some of the slave-holding Southerners as well, knew that slavery was wrong, about as wrong as a thing can be. They compromised away the life, liberty, and happiness of millions of Afro-Americans, in order to have a union.

Margalit distinguishes between compromise and “rotten compromise”. Rotten compromises are those that institute or perpetuate truly inhumane regimes, and such compromises are morally prohibited. By that standard it seems to me the founders' compromise was rotten. And by that standard, I guess, we shouldn't compromise with the Taliban. And Churchill probably shouldn't have compromised with Stalin at Yalta. And I suppose we shouldn't be negotiating with North Korea, and possibly not with Iran either. Inhumane regimes are a fact. Can there really be a moral prohibition against negotiating with them? And doesn't willingness to negotiate imply willingness to compromise?

We will have some help from Carrie Menkel–Meadow, professor of law at the University of California, Irvine. She's the author ofWhat's Fair: Ethics For Negotiators.

Comments(10)

Guest's picture

Guest

Saturday, October 23, 2010 -- 5:00 PM

Even though I doubt that anyone looks at these com

尽管我怀疑除了评论者之外，没有人会去看这些评论，但我还是会上当。你在文章中呈现的所有场景都让我们想到了一些策略，如情境伦理(射杀一个人拯救14人);为了事业的利益而放下自尊，进行实际的谈判，也被称为装死(丘吉尔)，以及办公室政治的现代基石:建立共识。讨价还价就是这样。这是一种为了得到你想要的东西而讨价还价的方式，而不是得到你不想要的东西或什么都没有。
Many would say that there is no bargaining with the devil, because the devil has nothing to lose, therefore you (the bargainer) have nothing to gain. And, you won't.
I don't know of Margalit, but it sounds to me like he(?) is not so much a philosopher as an analyst or amorality. Sure, I could be wrong. Sorry. Sounds like you are covering old ground with new sod-a philosophism I heard somewhere.

Harold G. Neuman's picture

Harold G. Neuman

Sunday, October 24, 2010 -- 5:00 PM

Of, or or---get it right Heisenberg---or stay away

或者，或者——说对了，海森堡——或者远离哲学，物理或者任何需要正确拼写和奶奶的东西。(Heh,heh)

Guest's picture

Guest

Monday, October 25, 2010 -- 5:00 PM

I don't think the truth should ever be compromised

我不认为真理应该被妥协，但我想，对于那么多仍在寻找真理的人来说，一个人不能妥协自己无法理解的东西。
那么关于真理的课程怎么样，谁来上真理101课?
=

Guest's picture

Guest

Monday, October 25, 2010 -- 5:00 PM

Truth? A class? Good luck on that, Michael. Oh. Wh

Truth? A class? Good luck on that, Michael. Oh. Which truth are you grasping for?

Guest's picture

Guest

Monday, October 25, 2010 -- 5:00 PM

In the proposed negotiation, it is most likely the

In the proposed negotiation, it is most likely the one holding the gun will be amused by you killing one of your own and then kill them all -- and you -- anyway.
as Heisenberg's Eyes said above:
"Many would say that there is no bargaining with the devil, because the devil has nothing to lose, therefore you (the bargainer) have nothing to gain. And, you won't."

Guest's picture

Guest

Tuesday, October 26, 2010 -- 5:00 PM

Thank you, Martina. Nice to know someone is paying

Thank you, Martina. Nice to know someone is paying attention,
H.E.

Harold G. Neuman's picture

Harold G. Neuman

Tuesday, October 26, 2010 -- 5:00 PM

Looks like Martina is a product of historionic eff

看来玛蒂娜是历史效应的产物。我的意思是她(假设)受到了改变我们所有人的历史变化的影响。或者，在他们抓住你之前抓住他们;历史地位:由于历史事件、时代和世代的怀疑、野蛮、掠夺等而产生的地位或者，玛蒂娜可能会简单地说:事情就是这样;交战规则不是我发明的，因此，不要把我牵扯进问题中。
As Ken Wilber has said: and just so. All of this is part of historionic effect. It is more than economics, politics, religion, cultural intractability and the other levels of foolishness we have come to accept as our world view(s). A friend is working on the book. He may finish it. Or not. We shall see. It is hard to write a history (or theory) of everything. Most have failed and will do so. But, it should not be so hard.
我们将会看到。继续思考，玛蒂娜，这需要练习。

Guest's picture

Guest

Thursday, October 28, 2010 -- 5:00 PM

Bargaining, compromise and consensus. We rely much

Bargaining, compromise and consensus. We rely much on these procedures and skills. I am inclined to agree with Mr. Ahles regarding truth, but there seem to be those times and circumstances where we tend to shade it, if not mangle it altogether. For example, our hesitance on telling someone they have only a short time to live. Doctor's take to heart the code: first, do no harm.
在有些情况下，讨价还价和妥协似乎永远不会有什么效果。让人想起中东战斗人员之间持续不断的争吵。专栏作家格温·戴尔(Gwynne Dyer)今天评论说，媒体似乎过度关注中东事务。这种情况已经持续了几十年，戴尔想知道为什么。我也是。看来这种关注在很大程度上是没有道理的，因为变化不大。
One wonders. Might we suppose that the more media attention those folks get, the more intractable and inflexible their respective positions become? That supposition (if we make it such) would tend to correlate with the reality of the matter. So, what, if anything, might change if the media circus came to an end? The various propaganda machines might run out of steam if their proponents were made to feel less important. Let's face it (and media folks, you are included here): news of the Middle East is not news anymore. Negotiations (bargaining, compromise, etc.) are non-negotiable. And those officials who try to broker peace end up being paid for looking foolish. What a way to earn living! At least clowns are serious about their work.
Dealing with the devil, indeed.
中东和平。这才是新闻。

Guest's picture

Guest

Friday, October 29, 2010 -- 5:00 PM

The Bargaining with the Devil discussion featured

“与魔鬼讨价还价”讨论的主要内容是，为了阻止更大的邪恶——纳粹德国的胜利，俄罗斯决定支持斯大林主义的俄罗斯——一个肯定不民主的政权。很好。但随后，讨论转向了其他总统是否现在或曾经面临类似的困境，前提是你相信美国的外交政策决定主要是针对民主目标的。这是荒谬的。真正的政治规则。你认为美国在1954年推翻了伊朗的摩萨德政府，危地马拉的阿尔本斯政府，智利的阿连德政府，以及许多其他民选政府，事实上，美国入侵伊拉克，现在支持马利基和卡尔扎伊，基本上是在努力促进民主吗?左右两派外交政策专家都非常清楚，对外政策是为了推进“国家利益”。所以有时促进民主符合我们的利益，有时不符合。战略家们之间的争论不在于承诺民主是否为压倒一切的目标，而在于如何定义民主，以及在当前形势下，民主是否是促进国家利益的最佳方式。
I suggest you might explore the ethics of either (1) promoting ideas about which you know very little but stating them as if these were uncontrovertible, or (2) using ideas you know to be questionable and simplistic to create more appealing radio.

Guest's picture

Guest

Sunday, November 28, 2010 -- 4:00 PM

as above mentioned that if a murderer says that yo

as above mentioned that if a murderer says that you have to kill one person to save others....that's not bloody bargaining for God's sake....that's blackmailing....that's what devil does...who said there is no bargaining with devil and he has nothing to lose?
如果出卖灵魂的人心甘情愿....这魔鬼了…这不是讨价还价，这是不道德....这被称为邪恶……如果没有人愿意把自己的灵魂出卖给魔鬼，那么魔鬼就没有完成他的使命。he has every thing to lose