The philosopher Epictetus maintains that one need only look at the choice to keep a secret to see that human beings have freedom of choice. Despite free choice in such matters, this does not mean there are no constraints on our decision-making. In Discourses, Epictetus asks, "Is it possible for [man] to be unimpeded? No. Therefore, he cannot be free" (Bk. IV, Ch. 1). The ethical dilemma at hand involves representing a client against her landlord, with the knowledge that the client is faking her injuries. This dilemma demonstrates that Epictetus is incorrect. Individuals can be free, but to act freely there is often a harsh price to be paid due to external constraints on free choice. In this sense, Epictetus is correct in that we cannot be absolutely free to choose.
The choice at hand concerns my interview of a client who wishes to sue her landlord for negligence in connection with severe injuries she received on her apartment house staircase. It is obvious to me during the interview that the client is faking her injuries. However, I know that in such cases there is a tendency for clients to receive a small payout from the landlord since it is cheaper to pay a small amount than legal fees for a trial. I also know that my office derives a fair share of its revenue from such cases. It is my choice to determine what to tell the client and the attorneys for whom I am preparing the interview.
It may seem from Epictetus' account of keeping a secret that I have complete freedom of choice in this situation to keep it to myself and from the client and lawyers that the client is faking. Yet there are many constraints on my decision that illustrate Epictetus' consideration of the nature of human power to be free, "Consider then: whether we have nothing which is in our own power only, or whether we have all things, or whether some things are in our own power, and others in the power of others" (Bk. IV, Ch...