Location
University of Windsor
Document Type
Paper
Keywords
compromise, fallacy of bargaining, fallacy of middle ground, mixed difference of opinion, negotiation, resolution
Start Date
18-5-2016 9:00 AM
End Date
21-5-2016 5:00 PM
Abstract
When unable to resolve a conflict of opinion about the objective worth of an action proposal, discussants may choose to negotiate for a compromise. Is it legitimate to abandon the search for a resolution, and instead enter into a negotiation that aims at settling the difference of opinion? What is the nature of a compromise, in contradistinction to a resolution? What kinds of argument do participants typically put to use in their negotiation dialogues?
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Reader's Reactions
David Godden, Commentary on Jan Albert van Laar and Erik C. W. Krabbe, “Splitting a Difference of Opinion” (May 2016)
Included in
Splitting a difference of opinion
University of Windsor
When unable to resolve a conflict of opinion about the objective worth of an action proposal, discussants may choose to negotiate for a compromise. Is it legitimate to abandon the search for a resolution, and instead enter into a negotiation that aims at settling the difference of opinion? What is the nature of a compromise, in contradistinction to a resolution? What kinds of argument do participants typically put to use in their negotiation dialogues?
