"Without God, everything is permitted." - Dostoevsky

Nobody has the qualifications to claims what is right and wrong but we must all learn to compromise. Even if 99% of the populations believe X is morally wrong, that does not make it so and especially does not make it a punishable act. Tyranny by the majority or minority is unacceptable, however, when beliefs clash, the only way forward is to compromise. After all, life is not about getting everything you want. If it were that easy, then it wouldn't be much fun. 

Life is about compromise. It is about the order we find in chaos. It is about revelling within the chaos of order. 

If we only read the books we like, then we may never discover a new genre to fall in love with. Life is about trying new things, no matter how much you hate to do so. 

Contradict yourself.

Torture yourself.

For to see what characters are truly made out of, you must break them... like geodes.

----------

Edit: 24th Feb 2021

There is no such things as compromise, only an inability to transcend the dichotomy. Within the second dimension a square can be equal to a circle? How? Shadows.

A cylinder under a certain lighting effect can cast a shadow of both a circle and a square. Compromise is, therefore, the transitional phase of ignorance that arises from the inability to transcend the need for a dichotomy. In a limited perspective ceterus paribus, indeed one shadow is a circle and in another limited perspective ceterus paribus, indeed one shadow is a square. But it is wrong to say that it is a square / is a circle/ is sometimes a square and sometimes a circle. The actual object is currently beyond comprehension and therefore there is no dichotomy nor is there a need for compromise. 

----------

Edit: 25th Mar 2021

For clarification: in an objective (transcendent) sense, there is no need for compromise, however, humans are not omniscient and therefore compromise is a medium of equitable exchange (placeholder). 

----------

Edit: 26th Mar 2021

Liberal interest in the Harm Principle is at the core of Mill's Utilitarianism: as long as no harm is done to another, a person is free to do as they please.

But what happens when harm is done?

If it was accidental, should the offender be held responsible?

If it was done on purpose, does the law have the right to coercion in order to suppress the offender? Is that not merely the victim becoming the bully?

Charles Slade on coercion:

The word "force" doesn't have a clear legal meaning.

It's for sure illegal to force some people to do some things against their will using some means. Equally for sure, not other people, doing other things, or via other means.

For example: your neighbor comes to you, desperate. He's leaving town on short notice, and needs someone to feed his cat while he's away. He's explored every other option, but none of them are acceptable. For whatever reason, only you can do it. You're his only hope.

You agree, but only if he agrees to cut down the tree in his back yard that blocks the light on your rose bushes. You've asked him to do that in the past, and he declined. You offered to pay for the landscaping. Declined. You offered to throw in some extra cash for his troubles. Declined. But now you have the leverage you need: you know he loves that cat.

Did you "force" him to cut down the tree? Arguably. But nothing I described above is illegal.

Let's add some facts. Let's say you're phenomenally rich. In fact, the reason your neighbor needs to leave town on short notice is because you secretly purchased his company, and secretly directed his boss to send him on this last-minute trip. At the same time, you have secretly retained every single cat-feeder in town during his absence, thereby preventing him from using their services. You've paid his friends to decline his cat-feeding requests. You really hate that damned tree of his.

This is even more arguably "forcing" him to cut down the tree, but is still not illegal.

Okay, erase all that. If you go to your neighbor one day and say "hey, cut down that tree in the back yard or I'll kill your beloved cat," then that's illegal.

This is but one of a million variations on the theme.

Source: https://www.quora.com/Is-it-against-the-law-to-force-a-person-to-do-something-against-their-will

In the above example, coercing your neighbour into the aforementioned Trolley Problem is unethical, particularly when your neighbour can live peacefully both with his cat and his tree. The only problem - you despise that tree. Is your neighbour wanting to keep the tree then considered coercion?

Here, we have a conflict of interests. Your neighbour wants the tree, but you don't. Is sacrificing your own happiness for the happiness of your neighbour ethical? Is it any more ethical the other way around?

It would be virtuous to allow your neighbour to keep his tree, but is it fair to you to sacrifice your own happiness? Why should you be the one to be virtuous and not your neighbour?

Compromise is therefore a pact of mutual coercion. If you want something, you have to willingly accept you have to be forced into doing some things you don't like. Extraditing this understanding to law, coercion against criminals is merely the consequence of breaking the pact of compromise - it is the equilibrating factor that restores equitable power.

Essentially, you can't have your cake and eat it too, and if you try, then you will be subject to coercion from the law. Unfortunately, not all cake is equal, but creating an equitable society is part of the challenge that is life. 

----------

Edit: 12th Apr 2021

Compromise is opening two taps from the same water source. The time, energy and overall resources used are the same but the efficiency is halved for both parties.

I.e.

Without compromise:

A could fill their water bottle first in 10 seconds.

B would have to wait 10 seconds and then fill their water bottle second which would take 10 seconds.

Overall, A waits 10 seconds and is satisfied.

B waits 20 seconds and is not satisfied.

With compromise:

A and B fill their water bottle at the same time; as the water flow is the same but is now used to fill two bottles, both A and B wait 20 seconds to fill their water bottle.

Overall, A waits 20 seconds and is not satisfied.

B waits 20 seconds and is not satisfied.

The effects of compromise only have a real tangible negative effect. B was originally not satisfied and is still not satisfied – there is not real change. However, A changes from being satisfied to being unsatisfied – there is a negative change.

The support for compromise, therefore, does not lie within tangible effects, but possible in intangible sentimental effects. Perhaps B was very unsatisfied, but now seeing that A is inconvenienced (in the case that B is a grudging person who gains happiness when others are forced to feel their pain), B changes from being very unsatisfied (-10) to being only slightly dissatisfied (-3). The support for compromise is that the magnitude of change in B's dissatisfaction (-10 to -3 = +7) is greater than or equal to A's change is satisfaction (7 or smaller).

But is this humane?

Afterall, to humans, a temperature of -50 degrees incites the exact same feeling (absolute numbness) as -70 degrees. Here the change in magnitude of temperature has no quantitative value. Therefore, when it comes to happiness or a change in dissatisfaction, does a change of very unsatisfied to slightly unsatisfied really warrant the compromise of another party's satisfaction?

Perhaps not. But what if the variable was starvation?

I.e. There is 90g of food available. A person needs to eat at least 9g of food to stave off death. Eating 9g of food will result in life with 0 happiness - for each additional gram of food received, +1 happiness will be awarded. There are 10 people in total.

In the case of compromise (for the sake of equity / equality), everyone get 9g with 0 total happiness. But without happiness is life worth living?

On the other hand, a single person could get 90g of food with 81 happiness. They are extremely satisfied, but everyone else is dead. Does this matter?

How do we qualitate human life?

How do we qualitate compromise?

Simply: we don't.

I, therefore, reiterate what I said earlier (24th Feb 2021) that compromise is a logical fallacy. It does not make sense to make sacrifices when it is entirely possible to achieve a win-win situation in everything we do - unfortunately, finding this situation is difficult and hence compromise is only a temporary solution.

There is no need to sacrifice the minority for the majority, and there is no need to use positive discrimination to coerce the majority for the sake of the minority. 

There is an objective Truth which is applicable to every situation, just how two students within a math class can effectively readjust the status quo (How and why we reason | Hugo Mercier | TEDxGhentSalon).

Don't be afraid to speak out. Just because 7 billion other people think you are wrong, there is a chance that you are right. Everything depends on epistemic contextualism: this is what makes Van Gogh a genius today yet a failure during his time. Everything is subjective except for Truth, hence, if you know what is right, then do it, speak it aloud and fight for objective justice. Do not settle for the norms of society.

You are right, until proven wrong... that doesn't mean you should reject 'evidence' because you don't believe in it. The gut is a form of proof, but ignorance out of stubbornness is not.

Just be careful with the Truth, because people are afraid. Be careful or you may be faced with something much worse than the Degradation of Dreyfus.

Reference: https://blog.ed.ted.com/2018/09/07/why-you-think-youre-right-even-when-youre-wrong/