I don’t disagree. But there is an implicit disembodied ‘you’ in the above. The best way [for you] is to promote a consensus…
If we look at Rosa Parks and the movement around her, they opted to be rather rigid and did not look for a compromise, whatever that would have been. They tried to eliminate segregation, period. They might accept compromises along the way as realists. Of course on the side they are making moral arguments to achieve perhaps not consensus, but enough support.
My point being that there is nothing wrong, per se, with aiming for what one wants and not the compromise. One direct practical reason for this is that the other side will use your aiming directly for compromise against you in the negotiation. And while one may later accept compromises, these will be seen as temporary and this is not per se bad.
I mentioned the disembodied you as an issue because then it is as if we are talking about everyone. But we are individual yous and those particular yous need, often, to go in with a not compromised goal.
It seems to me their job is more complicated. To represent their constituants. To remove or minimize pernicious aspect of legislation, even if this means NOT compromising. If one of the common occurrances is compromise this does not make it THE JOB. Just as disagreeing with their opponents and even allies will be a part of their work, it is not THE JOB. And sometimes their role entails, includes a duty, to NOT compromise.
Are you willing to compromise on the inclusion of minorities? Like we include some of them or only in some ways? would you go to the table with the intent to find a middle ground or with the goal or including them, period? I understand that for practical reasons you might accept a temporary less than ideal inclusion, but your goal and what seems to what you would consider your responsibility would in the long run be inclusion, period.
You have a morality of inclusion and you struggle to make the world match that.
Others have different ones.
We can’t make our own personal shoulds metashoulds.
Your morality is X.
Mine is Y.
But mine is actually right because it does Z, which supercedes your morals.
It’s the same when the right says liberals have no values. That conservatives are the only ones with values. Mine are values, yours are not. So my values are the ones we must go with.
Same in the sense that it is trying to create a meta-position to deny the validity of the other person’s morals being truly morals.
Oh, you got your belief from a line in the Bible, that is not best for all, in my estimation, so it is invalid.
One can certainly argue that there are problems with determining morals through scripture and so on.
But this thread, it seemed to me, seemed to be implying that ‘their’ values should not be part of the process because they come from religion. That this is Sharia - but Sharia would be going against the principles of the constitution around exclusion and freedom to practice. While individuals, be they politicians or citizens just, having their morals based on religion does not go against the constitution.
And much of the law is about exclusion. This person is allowed to do this because of X. All others are not.