[basisword]

I’m curious about this too. My partner and I are both from different cities and live in a third city. We have friends and family in the original two cities and friends in the third city. There’s no way to make it work for both of us, and in fact the neutral third city is probably the most fair option despite being far from the best for either of us.

[addaon]

The implicit definition of "fair" as "equal suffering" is always a bit concerning to me.

[basisword]

I get your point but the compromise isn’t “suffering”. We’re perfectly happy in the third city. It’s the moving to the original cities that could cause one persons suffering for another maximisation of their happiness.

[malauxyeux]

> The implicit definition of "fair" as "equal suffering" is always a bit concerning to me.

For family peace, it may be the best thing. My personal anecdote:

I'm from city A. My spouse is from city B. We lived in city C. Our parents were fine with that.

My mother-in-law developed a rare disease. She had no children nearby. Now we live in city B, close to her.

In city A, despite having two of my siblings nearby, my parents absolutely resented our move. They were quite hostile at some point.

That sent my spouse to therapy and there's been no contact between them since. I'm fully on my spouse's side, especially given what my parents said and did.

But the move has taken a real toll.

[coffeebeqn]

Life gets complicated. We’re in a similar situation - family and friends are mostly in cities A and B (in different countries nonetheless). We lived in a compromise/neutral city C until we needed help with the kids and it’s impossible to choose where to go for the long term.