Theory of Compromise

Compromise has become an integral parts of our lives, at least for many of us. I feel that there are two parts to that reaction of ours - substitution and reasoning for the substitution. Compromise in itself is a necessary evil. Often, people have the tendency to reason out their substitution ( either by chance or by choice) based on comparisons. Comparisons that transcend temporal limits. We are aware that any two arbitrary scientific experiments are compared if and only if the two experiments follow the same procedures/methods under the same standard environmental conditions.
Consider the event that person A desired to succeed in B. However, that did not happen at time t and resigned to fate and moved on to C. Assume he succeeds in C. The normative claim of A would be - "Thank God, B did not happen otherwise I would not have succeeded in C. " This might hold true for events that are serially dependent. For cases that are mutually exclusive such a reasoning appears to be a little distorted from my FOE's perspective. Lets say A's success in B meant him tying nuptial knot with his heartthrob. Failure in B implies A might have resigned to fate or was led by destiny to have a successful marriage with another person C.
Given such a scenario, how appropriate it is to compare persons across time at different situations? Time in itself is dynamic and ever changing that envelopes the entire creation as well in its change. We compare our moods, mind sets, reactions, physical, economical, mental statuses at two different time periods that encompass huge magnitudes of chaos within themselves. Our reactions and moods at time t1 are not equivalent to those at time t2 because, for them to be compared, we as individuals should have undergone the same set of reaction experiments at similar conditions,which is infeasible.

There is a deep inclination of people to regard their current position as the better when compared with the foregone opportunities. In the above case, there is a tendency to claim that C is better of the B. But who knows and who could validate that claim that A probably could have been a lot better off with the success with B. Thoughts on these lines are believed to channel negative connotations of our progress and life and we have resolved to the system of accrediting the current situation as the better against the foregone desires. Lest, we cant move on. This is a famous school of thought and my FOE's intention here is not to debate the resultants but the reasoning attached with the school of thought.

By merely comparing two events that are so unique in themselves, it is as good as comparing oranges and apples over two different time periods. Preferences evolve. Let us resign or accept the fate and let us move on, but let us not compare the results of two totally turnkey events of our lives. Turnkey as they seem because, their results change the path of lives and not judging the efficacy of one of the events with incomplete results and data is merely being foolish. At times hypocrisy.