To some mediators, bargaining is at the heart of the process; while for others, it has no role at all. By excluding bargaining, mediation may be effective in only a narrow range of family and divorce disputes; by including it, there is a risk of practice being incongruent with professional ideals. One argument against bargaining is that it is alienating and repugnant to family values and life. However, within a framework that views marriage as a contract, bargaining can be viewed positively if it meets three criteria: (1) it is a process of interaction, (2) it tends to produce agreement, and (3) it assumes shared decisionmaking. The second argument against bargaining is that it is egoistic, and that egoism tends to destroy families. However, egoism can act as an antidote against ideology which may serve to conceal interests and feelings. A restrained egoism can work to move self-serving positions toward mutually beneficial ones. It is suggested that mediation can provide conditions under which bargaining need not generate alienation and immoral egoism. While an adequate defense of bargaining will require more research and reasoned argument, an analysis of bargaining can clarify issues and the ethical consequences of mediation. Included are 25 references.