Why I’m Not a Fan of Compromise

I know it’s not popular to say, and I hope you won’t misunderstand me, but I’m not a fan of compromise—not in the sense of splitting the difference just to keep the peace. The problem is that we often leap to compromise before we truly define the underlying goals. We settle for a middle ground without ever asking: “Is there a better solution if we all agree on what’s truly important?”

Opinion plays a big part in human interactions, sure. But if we reduce every discussion to dueling viewpoints, then compromise is often the only fallback. Instead, I think we should focus on the bigger, shared objectives—the needs that aren’t just about you or me, but about the outcome that best serves the situation.

When you talk about “the best solution,” it can sound selfish or naive. But really, it’s about finding clarity: Why are we doing this? What are we trying to achieve for everyone’s benefit? If we can answer that, we can align on a path that serves those goals, instead of watering down each other’s viewpoints until no one’s happy.

I’m not denying the reality that sometimes people clash on values or resources. Sometime we cannot pass go without opinion driving the disussion. But rather than locking ourselves into “I get half, you get half,” maybe we can reach a place where we say, “We both agree on what matters—let’s solve for that.” It’s not a matter of who yields more; it’s about reframing the conversation around core principles or facts, so we can push toward a true solution, not just a bargain.

So no, I’m not a fan of compromise for compromise’s sake. I’d rather see us focus on goals that matter to all parties, and build from there. Because in the end, if we see the situation clearly and understand what really counts, we might find a solution that doesn’t feel like giving something up—it feels like creating something better.

We can do better, and not compromise.