How can we deal with fundamental disagreement in politics and society? I argue that compromise constitutes a promising, realistic tool in this regard that is preferable to ideal, consensus-based models of democratic deliberation. However, the idea of compromise is slightly paradoxical, because compromise presupposes its result. That is, it is not clear why disagreeing parties would agree to engage in negotiation, if they expect their positions to be compromised as a result. I call this problem the Initial Motivation Paradox. I argue that we might illuminate and eventually resolve this paradox, if we clarify the cognitive mechanisms of judgment formation, assuming that conflicting judgments are constitutive for disagreement. The emotional basis of judgment formation is particularly relevant in this regard, since it explains subjective impressions of moral and epistemological superiority and thus our reluctance to compromise with viewpoints that are opposed to ours.
