Paper: 'Intra-Personal Compromises'

ARGUMENTA

Issue 21

November 2025

https://www.argumenta.org/issue/issue-21/

Intra-Personal Compromises  

Juha Räikkä

University of Turku 

Abstract

The most usual philosophical questions about compromises have been those related to inter-personal compromises, in which parties are compromising with each other, rather than intra-personal compromises, which are often psychologically demanding. This paper aims to fill the gap in the discussion and briefly analyze the nature of intra-personal compromises. The starting point here is the assumption that inter-personal compromises cannot be made without intra-personal compromises, although intra-personal compromises are common even when they are not linked to inter-personal compromises. The main question addressed in the paper is whether the intra-personal compromises that we accept in all kinds of contexts are similar to those intra-personal compromises that we make when we compromise with others. I argue that they are more or less similar, although there are also some distinctive features in intra-personal compromises that are involved in inter-personal compromises. When a person makes an intra-personal compromise in the context of an inter-personal compromise she is forced to act under uncertainty, as she cannot know beforehand what options are really available. The price of the compromise is known only after the negotiation process. This is a special feature, or so I will claim. 

Keywords: Inter-personal compromise, Intra-personal compromise, Bargaining, Uncertainty. 

Räikkä, R. 2025, “Intra-Personal Compromises”, Argumenta 11, 1, 149–162.
https://www.argumenta.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/Argumenta-11-1-Juha-Raikka-Intra-Personal-Compromises.pdf
 

For a long time I have viewed the INTERPERSONAL domain of Hodges' model as being concurrent, interchangable, working as the INTRAPERSONAL domain. This paper is a helpful discovery, c/o Philos-L "The Liverpool List" which is run by the Department of Philosophy, University of Liverpool https://www.liverpool.ac.uk/philosophy/philos-l/

There are several examples/cases discussed. While brief, a HOSPITAL CEO example is relevant to studies for Hodges' model, as with, a CRITICAL CITIZEN:

'The above examples are rather similar but have small differences. In the ‘Judge’ example, the overriding principle is based on the importance of institutional rules. In the ‘Hospital CEO’ example, the main concern and the strongest value is pragmatic. In the ‘Critical Citizen’ example, the question is about omission rather than action.' p.157. 

The observation about the CEO speaks volumes, across public and private health sectors (and social care?). There is no discussion of reflection, reflexivity, or critical thinking explicitly. But individual, and collective distinctions, and impacts are explored, especially responsibility and mutuality. Three arguments precede concluding remarks. Further progress might be made exploring and relating these to the concepts of bargaining, uncertainty and compromise through Hodges' model and identity: both person-al and organisational?