Economist vs. Aquinas

Don't get into a discussion about "want" in economic terms with a pious man: this is what I have learned today. The banality and physical nature of the conversation will drive him crazy, and then lack of application to the spiritual world, as he sees it. Dogma vs. dogma. It has been a long night, and we have plenty of other things to do so naturally this is what we discuss. Do people always have a choice, even one they choose not to take? Does an addict choose to continue their habit even if they "want" to stop? The economist would say no, that their action indicates their choice. People can choose not to be hungry in various ways, some more or less extreme than others - they can steal food, eat dirt to filly their stomachs, or kill themselves. There are plenty of other options too, but this sort of argument is lost on those pure in motive, constrained by vision through morality. Is that view necessarily worse? Perhaps not, it is simply different. For the success of society perhaps we need that type and this together, a check and balance - a moral compass to hedonistic action.