Question

Hello,
From what I understand, all the halakhic decisors, or at least most of them, ruled in the topic of "possible but unintended" in accordance with Rabbi Shimon: that if a person does not intend to derive benefit from a forbidden pleasure, it is permitted even if he has the option of avoiding it. By contrast, in another passage (Bava Batra 57b) it says that someone who could have gone by a route where he would not encounter forbidden benefit, but does not do so, is called wicked (when there is an alternative route), even if he shut his eyes.
On the face of it, this conflicts with the passage about possible but unintended, where it is permitted even though there is an option to avoid it — whereas here, if there is an option to avoid it, it turns out to be forbidden even though the person guarded himself.
What does the Rabbi think about this? Is it simply a matter of different opinions? Because it seems that the halakhic decisors brought both of these passages as Jewish law, and on the face of it that is contradictory…