The Nature of Compromise

Great Debates
1

I have a specific issue in mind, one with which my community is currently wrestling. But, I am going to attempt to avoid it and deal in hypotheticals instead. Here goes:

How does a reasonable group effectively negotiate a compromise?

Let us assume that three people, Tom, Dick and Harry, are seated together in a room for some reason. Again, I’ll avoid specifics, but, for the purposes of this thought experiment, the following rules apply:

[list=1]
[li]All three men must remain in the room indefinitely.[/li][li]No man holds a more exalted position in the others’ eyes.[/li][li]Tom prefers an ambient room temperature near 65 degrees.[/li][li]Dick prefers an ambient room temperature near 75 degrees.[/li][li]Harry requires an ambient room temperature above 85degrees for medical reasons.[/li][/list=1]

Now, before you all jump in to tell me that Harry should obviously be allowed to be in charge of the thermostat since his reason is a medical need, let me state that Tom and Dick aren’t really sure that Harry’s medical need is a real one; they think he just likes it really warm and is willing to act like a pissy child to get it.

Right now, all three men are at each other’s throats, complaining about the temperature and how the others are trampling their rights to comfort.

Can you help me help them?

(Bonus points for anyone who can figure out what I’m really talking about :slight_smile: )

2

Work, probably. Let whoever owns the thermostat, or whoever is the authorized representative of the owner, decide its setting.

3

And suppose that’s Tom, and Harry’s telling the truth, and he dies?

4

Actually, Lib, it’s a religious issue.

5

Single variable negotiation is not amenable to compromise. Three sets of requirements, each exclusive of the others, and no other area of negotiation even possible. This is not the type of situation where negotiation of a compromise is likely. No one wants anything not directly stated, no one has any reason which the others find compelling to be granted their desire. No one has any other consideration to offer the others in return for compliance.

If Harry shows obvious symptoms of ill health, the others might reassess their opinions. Failing that, after Harry dies of whatever medical issue obtains the other two can set up a schedule.

Ignoring the trivial point of room temperature, and pooling their resources to counter whatever coercion is compelling them to remain in the room would be far more useful.

6

I think triska is right. There are not enough variables in this example. People seldom want one thing, and want it equally.

eg
Tom want the room at 65 degrees, but maybe he only wants this a little bit. Maybe Harry could pay him to settle for 85 degrees. By “pay” I don’t necessarly mean money. He could be paid with money, an agreement to vote with Tom on another issue, or special previleges of some sort. Maybe tom and Dick could buy harry a coat or a space heater. In real world examples there are many variable and many solution. The worst solution of course being war. Tom could kill Dick and Harry and then set the thermostat at 65.

7

set teh thermostat at 65, dick puts on a light sweater, and harry puts on heavy clothing. everyone gets approximately what they want/need.

what you are really talking about is, who gets their rules. those that want to restrict others, or those that want freedom. with the stricter rules senario, only those that agree with the rules can be happy within their shell. with teh freedom senario everyone can apply teh rules they feel are appropriate to themselves.

8

Harry should begin by saying that he appreciates the others’ doubts as to to his sincerity and recognises that a solution that suits him will require an accommodation by the others.

He should then ask the other two how he might convince them of the reality of his medical condition.

This approach both emphasises the acceptance of the requirement for agreement (i.e is not a threat) and asks for - rather than demands - the recognition of Harry’s bona fides.

picmr

9

This is going well… and faster than I expected.

Let’s put faces on the names…

The three men in my OP represent three factions of a Jewish Community, each with increasingly stringent rules regarding what constitutes food that may be eaten (ie, Kosher Food).

Obviously, Tom, way down at the bottom of the thermostat, is happy with almost any food, while Harry, an orthodox Jew, has very strict rules abtout what can and can’t be eaten. Dick finds himself somewhere in the middle.

The situation comes to a head at community events, like weddings, Bar Mitzvahs, etc:

What makes the situation a difficult one is that, while Tom and Dick may feel they have the “right” to eat non-kosher food, Harry simply can’t tolerate any leniency on this issue. We’ll avoid totally Harry’s feelings regarding what other Jews eat; he simply can’t eat the food the others are willing to.

Isn’t it logical in such a case to ask the entire group to conform to Harry’s wishes (unless they are willing to not have him at community events)? Doesn’t his need for Kosher food outweigh their preference for dishes that are not Kosher?

10

in your initial post, medical reasons were cited for harry’s requirment. presumably this implies direct immediate physical impairment for failure to comply.

but in your ‘real world’ example, it is religious reasons. so teh ‘medical need’ has become superstitious desire.

while good points were made in response, i find it hard to reconcile those two different senarios.

[just to tone down my own rhetoric, i do, irl, try not to trample on people’s religious beliefs as long as my own beliefs don’t get stamped upon.]

11

No, I don’t think Harry has a right to limit everyone to his desires in the clarified example. I have an extremely limited diet (for one thing I am an ovo-lacto vegetarian, and am very careful about that, no soups with meat stocks, no marshmallows with gelatin etc.) and this means that at many events I know that I won’t be able to eat. Even if close friends are hosting a party, I generally try not to make an issue of it, because feeding me is incredibly difficult (and moreso when combined with other friends who have varying needs, some with deathly allergies). So I try to eat before going to these things, or be prepared to eat afterwards, or depending on the event, bring something of my own. If you are far more limited in your options than most people you have to accept a little bit of inconvenience at times. But making everyone deal with my peculiarities is unfair.

12

surel:

Your point is well taken, as is the similar reply from dixiechiq. But, imagine if you were invited to a dinner party for a community of “ovo-lacto vegetarians,” only to discover upon arrival that the host and some of the guests had different views than you on the definition of what could and could not be served.

What then?

If a community event is defined in terms meant to include all members of that community, musn’t the details be fashioned to meet the most strict interpretation of those terms?

13

Well, sdim, I run some feasts for SCA events. Nowadays, there are a lot of various types of vegetarians, and some Jews (but no Orthodox eating our feasts, as we don’t run a compltetely orthodox kitchen). So we label foods and give a list of ingrediants, and try to have some vegetarian dishes. Sometimes this means changing a recipe slightly, such as a mainly vegan dish that calls for chicken broth, we will sub vegetrian “faux chicken broth”. But these are minor changes, and agreeable to almost all.

Now, as to your example: if there was non-strictly kosher food served at the same dinner, would not the Orthodox be able to eat that which was kosher enuf for him? I am sure that the reform & conservative jews would accept no pork, etc, as it takes a very reform jew to eat pork, anyway. Could not some orthodox dishes be seperately catered? The % thereby = to the % of orthodox attendees? Thus, at a wedding, you could have a “kosher table”. However, if there was only a very small % of observant attendees, then I would expect those to eat elsewhere, prior.

Oh, and as a general query, what happens if an Observant Jews eats non-kosher? 1. By accident, 2. Out of need, or 3.just does. I know only the ultra-O would decry anyone to eat non-kosher if the choice was starvation, but is there a “penance”?

14

Well, Miss Manners would say :slight_smile: that all these people are displaying an unseemly focus on food preferences and requirements as opposed to the duties of giving and receiving hospitality.

Basic Precept: Etiquette requires hosts to make their guests as comfortable as possible while not betraying their own principles, and requires guests to accept their hosts’ hospitality gracefully, also stopping short of betraying their own principles. That means:

  1. If Tom invites Harry or Dick (or Dick invites Harry) to an event where food will be served, he should do his best to allow for their dietary requirements. If he simply can’t do it (the one glatt kosher caterer in town is just way too expensive or his food is just awful—I’ve eaten some of that caterer’s meals!—and would make the other guests miserable), then he should make it clear that they won’t be able to eat the food. He should do his damnedest to arrange to have at least something that meets their requirements, and he should certainly cut out that boorish and ungracious whining about his “right” to serve food that his guest can’t eat.

  2. If Harry invites Dick or Tom to such an event, he should make the meal as enjoyable as possible for them without violating his own rules about what is proper for Jews to eat.

  3. If Dick or Harry, as a guest, is faced with a meal he can’t eat then he should abstain from eating it, as inconspicuously and graciously as possible. If Dick or Tom is faced with a meal he considers unimaginative or overly restrictive, he should remember that he is not a fricking restaurant critic but a favored recipient of hospitality, and eat the stuff. Any guest who goes around trying to stir up trouble and argument about whether a host’s hospitality is insufficient or inappropriate does not deserve ever to be invited anywhere, and a trolley car should grow in his stomach (God forbid).

  4. If these nebbishes are all on the same committee charged with the responsibility of menu planning for community events, then you are in for some big ol’ fights, and all you can do is try to keep reminding everybody of the Basic Precept above. But in my experience, weddings and bar/bat mitzvahs are not usually communally-sponsored events, and so the host(s) have final authority.

And anyway, aren’t these supposed to be joyful community celebrations? Tell Tom, Dick, and Harry to quit worrying so much about what’s on their plates and ask me to dance (I’m the brunette in blue) instead.

15

Right, if Harry is Orthodox of course he can’t ask me to dance, but let him get out there on the floor with the rest of the guys.

16

I was afriad that if I gave the specifics this thing would get sidetracked. It did.

Let me try again:

In the city in which I live, an eatery has opened, calling itself a “community” facility. My question is a simple one: If this place wants to be a “community” facility, musn’t it conform to the most strict set of rules to which members of that community adhere?

In other words… yes, both Reform and Orthodox Jews are equal members of the community. But, whereas a Reform Jew can eat strictly kosher food, an Orthodox Jew can not eat food that a Reform Jew might be comfortable eating.

Doesn’t this mean that an establishment must conform to Orthodox practices in order to satisfy all members of the community?

PS - Kimstu, I’ll be looking for you! ;j

17

By that logic, any hospital located in a community with a decent proportion of Jehvovah’s Witnesses should not perform blood transfusions or organ transplants.

IMHO, “community” facilities should conform to the broadest possible set of rules, not the narrowest. Anything else isn’t representative, it’s exclusionary.

18

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by pldennison *
**

You would be right if the hospital in question was earmarked for the Jehovah’s Witness Community.

I guess I wasn’t specific enough; the eatery in question is part of a larger facility tageted specifically at the Jewish community.

**

I agree in theory, but in a case like this, we’ve moved full circle: the rules are so broad that they have become “exclusionary.”

No?

19

Oh! Well yes, that is a different issue, and I’m sorry I went off on a tangent and wasted a perfectly good etiquette rant. :slight_smile:

But maybe I can recycle some of it. (First, Phil, I think your exclusive/inclusive identification is a little backward: food prepared according to the “strict” rules can be eaten by all three Jewish groups, which makes it more inclusive.) It still boils down to the fact that the host makes the rules but the host has an obligation to be considerate of the guests. This is still true, although from a more mercenary standpoint, in the case of a commercial eatery.

So the question is, who are the hosts in this case? Is this eatery an undertaking of united Hadassah groups or some other temple organizations, including the Orthodox? If the Orthodox shul is in any way involved in supporting this venture it certainly has a right to have a say in the menu.

If not, then the hosts can serve all the unkosher food they want. However, identifying this place as an eatery “for the Jewish community” in this case is indeed somewhat misleading, and in fact more than a little insulting. It’s tantamount to telling the Orthodox Jews that they’re not really part of the Jewish community.

Miss Manners does not look kindly on hosts who claim that they are equally welcoming and open towards all their guests while requiring some of the guests to violate their principles if they want to participate in the event they’re invited to. You don’t ask your strict Amish friends over to watch television, you don’t invite your Catholic friends for a steak dinner on a Friday in Lent, and you don’t request your Orthodox Jewish friends to eat treyf. If you want to host such an event, it’s not polite to claim that you’re holding it for the entire community that includes these people; if you really want everybody to be able to participate, you have to use your imagination to find a different focus for the event that doesn’t violate anyone’s principles, and/or provide some alternatives for the exceptions. (This is one of the reasons that most traditional social events have conversation as their central activity: nobody’s beliefs prohibit them from talking to other people, except maybe Trappist monks, who tend not to get out much anyway. :))

As I said, hosts can’t always accomodate all of their guests’ requirements, but for something like a private wedding or bar mitzvah the emphasis is supposed to be on the celebration of a joyful event with your selected friends, and not on what or how much food you can squeeze out of the hosts. But a dining establishment, commercial or otherwise, the stated purpose of whose whole existence is to serve food to Jewish people? No, if these hosts are never obeying strict kashrut laws then they are indeed not running an eatery for the Jewish community, they are running one for the Reformed and/or Conservative Jewish community.

That said, I personally would look kindly on some kind of compromise plan where strictly kosher food was served on some nights and more latitude allowed on others, if the kitchen can manage it. Diverse communities do have to make compromises, and saying “we have to do everything my way all the time because my requirements are more stringent” is not a very gracious attitude to take in dealing with others in one’s community, any more than “we’re not going to worry about your requirements because they’re too much bother” is.

20

Ah, now with the specifics, I too change my view. If you are advertising it for the Jewish community you should keep it to the strictest rules, especially since you can do so without hurting others. Besides, you can’t really do it Orthodox sometimes or some meals and Reform in other ways without keeping two separate kitchens, sets of dishes, etc. Afaik, according to strict rules any contamination (not just food, but the establishment working on the Sabbath for example) contaminates it. This also isn’t some small minority with strict and bizarre rules, this is a decent subset of the people you are trying to serve. If I went to a vegetarian group meeting (if they hold such things) I’d certainly expect them to have some vegan dishes, and I would not mind if it were all vegan.