Theory essay 1 A brief look upon the world today will show us just how crucial compromise Truly is for our society. If any given community tries to become utopian, then Compromise is definitely the driving force behind that community. According to the Oxford dictionary, compromise may be defined as an agreement or settlement of a dispute that is reached by each side making concessions. From that definition, we can clearly see that compromise is heavily embedded in many if not all aspects of our lives; Moreover, if compromise affects us directly then it is our duty to implement compromise unconditionally in order to make reliable decisions. We argue that compromise is an unconditional moral value, because compromise effects all groups and communities no matter how extravagant or trivial they might seem. To see the effect of compromise in different aspects of our lives, we will briefly explain in the following: 1- in marriage, compromised means understanding that a relationship consists of two individuals and the key to the success of any relationship is by reaching a mutual understanding which requires a level of sacrifice from each of the individuals. 2- In politics, compromise is often misunderstood as mere weakness or the inefficiency of a politician to realize the goals of her/his campaign; However, History tells us that this is simply not true, Compromise in politics is a concept of finding agreement through communication, through a mutual acceptance of terms—often involving variations from an original goal or desires; In other words, compromise in politics is an absolute moral value since it is based on the realization that we are all parts of a bigger global society. 3- in the classroom, Compromise is shown when a professor changes his/her method of teaching in order to creatively find new ways to teach the students. (different students have different mindsets which require different ways of delivering the information to them) 4- in religion, Compromise is apparent when different followers of different faiths come together and unite in order to benefit the whole world spiritually by aspiring to unite as one body. 5- in a democracy, The concept of democracy itself is built on the idea that the control of any organization or group should be done by the majority of its members; In other words, we could ever meet all of the different requirements we can never satisfy everyone so in order to prevent chaos and actually have the country to continue running, we compromise to satisfy the different parties involved in order for us to not become fixated upon a single issue and forget the end goal of our society which is to further improve our ever lasting civilization. There are many criticisms and arguments against the concept of compromise; Nonetheless, i will start off by quoting Greg Laurie in his book the dangers of compromise: "Have you ever heard the story of the guy who could not decide what side he wanted to fi ...

1. Theory essay 1
A brief look upon the world today will show us just how crucial
compromise Truly is for our society. If any given community
tries to become utopian, then Compromise is definitely the
driving force behind that community.
According to the Oxford dictionary, compromise may be
defined as an agreement or settlement of a dispute that is
reached by each side making concessions.
From that definition, we can clearly see that compromise is
heavily embedded in many if not all aspects of our lives;
Moreover, if compromise affects us directly then it is our duty
to implement compromise unconditionally in order to make
reliable decisions.
We argue that compromise is an unconditional moral value,
because compromise effects all groups and communities no
matter how extravagant or trivial they might seem.
To see the effect of compromise in different aspects of our
lives, we will briefly explain in the following:
1- in marriage, compromised means understanding that a
relationship consists of two individuals and the key to the
success of any relationship is by reaching a mutual
understanding which requires a level of sacrifice from each of
the individuals.
2- In politics, compromise is often misunderstood as mere
weakness or the inefficiency of a politician to realize the goals
of her/his campaign; However, History tells us that this is
simply not true, Compromise in politics is a concept of finding
agreement through communication, through a mutual acceptance
of terms—often involving variations from an original goal or
desires; In other words, compromise in politics is an absolute

2. moral value since it is based on the realization that we are all
parts of a bigger global society.
3- in the classroom, Compromise is shown when a professor
changes his/her method of teaching in order to creatively find
new ways to teach the students. (different students have
different mindsets which require different ways of delivering
the information to them)
4- in religion, Compromise is apparent when different
followers of different faiths come together and unite in order to
benefit the whole world spiritually by aspiring to unite as one
body.
5- in a democracy, The concept of democracy itself is built on
the idea that the control of any organization or group should be
done by the majority of its members; In other words, we could
ever meet all of the different requirements we can never satisfy
everyone so in order to prevent chaos and actually have the
country to continue running, we compromise to satisfy the
different parties involved in order for us to not become fixated
upon a single issue and forget the end goal of our society which
is to further improve our ever lasting civilization.
There are many criticisms and arguments against the concept
of compromise; Nonetheless, i will start off by quoting Greg
Laurie in his book the dangers of compromise: "Have you ever
heard the story of the guy who could not decide what side he
wanted to fight for during the Civil War? He put on the coat of
the North and the trousers of the South, and guess what? He got
shot at from both sides! This is what happens to the
compromiser, the person who tries to live in two worlds. It's
one miserable place to be."
The criticizers of compromise went as far as to try to

3. distinguish it from all fields of life, here are some of their
arguments:
1- The reason why most of us are happier when we are single is
because the whole concept of marriage is built on sacrifice
which forces us to let go of our own happiness and freedom for
the sake of our partner partner, compromise in marriage is a
self-made jail.
2- politicians are elected because they promise the people to
achieve certain goals; Moreover, if a politician compromises
his/her goals for the sake of another party, then his electors will
be disappoint; Nonetheless, compromise in politics is -more
often than not- misunderstood as weakness which in turn leads
to war.
3- If a teacher compromises in his/her classroom then he will
not to teach in the best way he/she deems fit, which effects the
teacher's wellness which in turn decreases the productivity of
the classroom as a whole.
4- If compromise has been done in religion, then no religion
would have been able to spread its message.
Historically speaking, many religious institutes went into wars
just to spread their message, as in the case of the crusades.
5- compromise leads to democracy, and democracy puts the
power in the hands of the voters who sometimes don't know
what's good for them, figuratively speaking.
These criticisms might seem attractive upon first glance;
However, with deep observation, we can see just how selfish
these criticisms truly are.
Compromise means that the individual accepts standards that
are lower than what he/she desires in order to reach the
betterment of his community, if we all compromise for the sake
of our community then the benefit will affect each of us on an
individual level because -in the end- we're all parts of that

4. community and the betterment of that community is the
betterment of all of us.
Unlike the previous criticisms, compromise is not short-
sighted, compromise means prosperity on the long-term which
naturally requires more work and sacrifice.
Compromise is an unconditional moral value because it
effects everyone and everything around us. Compromise is
crucial in all relationship, whether it’s with friends, family
members, the government or your partner. It’s necessary to
know when to get out of your comfort zone in order to benefit
everyone around you.
Critical Thinking, also known as Dialectic, is the method of
philosophy. It is a method applicable only to open questions,
that is, questions that are not answerable by means of
observation or calculation. In this regard it is applicable both to
private open questions - which, because of their private,
particular nature, cannot be considered philosophical - as well
as public, or general question - that is, ones which require no
special knowledge or information about particulars in order to
be answered.
The method of Critical Thinking consists of a method of
framing issues and testing conclusions which is similar to the
deductive manner in which science frames theories and then
tests hypotheses deduced from them. The main difference is that
science deals only with questions that can be answered by
observation and calculation, i.e. closed questions, while
Dialectic only. deals only with open questions.

5. In a wider sense, critical thinking can be described as
deductively framed argumentation. In this sense, the method of
science is embraced within Critical Thinking.
The Dialectic Method/Essay Format
Philosophy proceeds by the presentation and development of
arguments regarding controversial general open questions.
To “take a position for the sake of argument” means to present
an argument for or against a controversial thesis, regardless of
whether or not you’ve decided that you subscribe to that
argument.
To present an argument means
i. to state a thesis - negative or affirmative; and
ii. to state a rationale for that thesis.
A rationale is a set of premises which, together, entails the
thesis, i.e. the conclusion of the argument. This means that the
premises must be such that, if they are all true, then the
conclusion has to be true as well.
There are two kinds of premise that are included in any
rationale:
1. formal, or “major” premise, and
2. material, or “minor” premise.
A material premise is the evidence for the conclusion. It is the
most likely kind of premise to be stated; the least likely to be a
“hidden” premise.
A formal premise is a “connecting” premise: it connects the
evidence deductively to the conclusion; i.e. it expresses the

6. intended deductive relationship between the evidence and the
conclusion.
A formal premise is the most likely kind of premise not to be
stated, i.e. to remain “unstated” or “hidden”.
Every well-presented argument has at least one material premise
and at least one formal premise.
The way to construct an argument is backwards:
n First, think of the conclusion you want to argue for - for
the sake of argument.
n Next, think of the strongest evidence that there is to
support that conclusion.
n Thirdly, express the deductive connection between the
conclusion and the evidence.
To develop an argument is to defend it, then criticize it, then try
to rebut the criticism against it, then assess whether the rebuttal
effectively handles the criticism.
To defend an argument is to do two things:
i. provide explanatory (not dictionary) definitions for
pivotal terms in the premises.
ii. advocate for the truth of each of the premises.
Notes:
1. Each definition should be in a paragraph by itself, and
each premise should be advocated for in a separate paragraph.
You should try to defend more than one premise at a time.
2. The conclusion is not to be defended, since it is already
taken care of by the
premises.

7. To criticize an argument is more succinct: it is simply to turn
the tables and try to say why one of the premises of the
argument - the one most vulnerable to criticism - may actually
be false, or at least dubitable. This should take a good-sized
paragraph. Be careful in your criticism to remain patient and not
try to turn back to rebuttal of the criticism too quickly.
To rebut criticism is to turn the tables on the criticism and try
to say how the criticism fails to refute the argument. This also
should be a good-sized paragraph. It should be based on new
insight and not merely be a restatement of the defense.
To assess an argument in this context is to judge whether the
rebuttal overcomes the criticism or not. This can be done in a
paragraph, either before or in concluding. If done in concluding,
the concluding paragraph should be a good-sized paragraph.
This, in short, is the method of dialectic reasoning, and that is
what justifies it as the format for philosophical essays. In real
life the method is reiterative, where there may be several rounds
of criticism and rebuttal, then revised presentation of the
argument, etc.
In this class, I ask you to go each of the steps once per paper.
Arguments for Compromise and Obedience
For Compromise:
Compromise is any method or mechanism for resolving
disagreement in a group decision-making situation toward a
group decision.
There are, of course good and bad compromises.
I argue that compromise is an unconditional virtue of social

8. morality in that without the universal willingness to
compromise, groups could not reliably make decisions,
thus human socialness would fail, as groups by their inaction
would cease to exist.
The argument for this could be charted as follows:
1. Whatever disposition is without exception indispensable for
successful human socialness, i.e. group action is an
unconditional virtue of social morality.
2.. The universal willingness to compromise is
a disposition without exception indispensable for successful
human socialness, i.e. group action.
C. Compromise is an unconditional virtue.
Could a similar argument could be made for obedience? The
catch is, we'd have to leave room for civil disobedience:
1. Whatever disposition is without exception indispensable for
successful human socialness, i.e. group action is an
unconditional virtue of social morality.
2. Obedience is a disposition which, with the sole exception of
the obligation to disobey unjust orders in a self-sacrifical
manner, is indispensable for successful human socialness, i.e.
group action.
3. But the obligation to disobey unjust orders in a self-
sacrifical manner is itself a form of obedience (e.g. to a higher
authority, or as subjugation of one's individual will will to the
good of the group, etc.)
4. If 1,2, and 3, then obedience is an unconditional virtue of
social morality.
C. Obedience is an unconditional virtue of social morality.
Recall that our definition of obedience is the subjugation of the
individual will to the will of the group, for the sake of the
group.