Aquinas distinguishes between choices and no-brainers, though not in those terms. In a choice between options A and B, there is something that each of these options has subjectively going for it that the other option does not. But if A is a no-brainer over B, A has something subjectively going for it that B does not, but B has nothing subjectively going for it that A does not. In other words, A subjectively dominates B. And we can say that A is a no-brainer provided that A is a no-brainer over all the subjectively available options.
The famous example is that for the souls in heaven, heavenly beatitude is a no-brainer: heavenly beatitude beats every alternative in every respect. Thus, for a soul in heaven, there is never a choice between heavenly beatitude and another option.
For us, on the other hand, heaven is not a no-brainer. One might choose between heavenly beatitude and being Attorney General of Wales. There are at least two ways in which this can happen. First, due to cognitive deficiences, we may not fully perceive heavenly beatitude as containing within itself all that is worth having in being Attorney General of Wales. We may mouth the words "heaven is better", but not really perceive it (i.e., the intellect may fail to present all the advantages of heaven to the will), or we might not even mouth the words. Note that there is also a difference between:
- x perceives that: for all r, A is better than B in respect of r,
- For all r, x perceives that A is better than B in respect of r.
I think Aquinas would want to say that if determinism is true, there are no choices, only no-brainers. But I am having trouble making this argument.