I shall refer to strategic compromises if compromising is just a means to attain ulterior goals with a pragmatic approach, irrespective of their being CA or CD.
A moral CD entails the possibility of compromising our principles and values or those of others.
All of these conditions provide different answers to the question of how justifying compromises, but they share the emphasis on the solution that would be possible by compromising. In other words, the circumstances of compromise are reasons to accept a compromise as a solution because this is the only possible way (or the least bad one) to achieve an agreement.
These are predicaments where any accord or decision is faulty, so that compromising is unavoidable.
Here the justification problem can be posed in this way: taking for granted that compromising is morally right in this particular situation, what is the content of the compromise?
Indeed, there is an "intimate relation" between compromising and second best decisions, as Margalit (2010, p.
The significance of my point is that those motives are not merely the causes of the CS, but of compromising in general.
Nevertheless the agent may still think that it is not worth compromising. If the agent does not compromise, then she will refuse to take part in an agreement, to perform her part of a common task, or to carry out some action.
301.7122-1T(b)(4)(i)-(iii) provides that, in addition to
compromising a tax liability based on doubt as to liability and/or doubt as to collectibility, the IRS will compromise a liability to "promote effective tax administration" when: