Every position has be addressed from "where one is standing" so to speak. So any choice can be looked at as a "choice" or a "practical / responsible choice". A true choice is a real choice ***ONLY*** when each option has equal reward and consequences.
After committing a crime, the person is offered a choice .... a) probation and you have to remain gainfully emloyed and you have to wear and ankle monitor for a year or b) Go to prison for a year and your kids will be placed for social services. Literally, you do have a choice ..... practically, you really have no practical choice because the cost of option b) is to great for a reasonable person to endure.
There is no real 'choice' when the cost of one or the other is too high. Just because one person doesn't care about the cost, doesn't negate the fact that for many the cost is "unreasonable" A literal choice may exist, but often one choice will be impractical and / or unreasinable. To answer the question, the problem is "not recognizing that there is a difference" between a literal choice and an unpractical one.
After committing a crime, the person is offered a choice .... a) probation and you have to remain gainfully emloyed and you have to wear and ankle monitor for a year or b) Go to prison for a year and your kids will be placed for social services. Literally, you do have a choice ..... practically, you really have no practical choice because the cost of option b) is to great for a reasonable person to endure.
There is no real 'choice' when the cost of one or the other is too high. Just because one person doesn't care about the cost, doesn't negate the fact that for many the cost is "unreasonable" A literal choice may exist, but often one choice will be impractical and / or unreasinable. To answer the question, the problem is "not recognizing that there is a difference" between a literal choice and an unpractical one.
---