user14288: It makes no sense that a person would knowingly choose to be ignorant of what causes them suffering, yet people suffer for "their" ignorance anyway. 
How is a person supposed to "freely/willingly choose" insight/knowledge if that choice is dependent upon already having some insight/knowledge? Are the persons choices before choosing insight/knowledge completely at random? Do people not have any freedom or autonomy?   
I think this may be another unanswerable question.   

user43: I agree with ChrisW here. Your question implies that you take it personally, while in reality it is an impersonal process. What seems like "you" and "your suffering" (as well as all other sentient beings with their respective experiences) arises from an accumulation and "clumping" of tendencies.
In the beginning these tendencies don't have any awareness, but over time they develop into something that can reflect and think, and once there is thinking, it starts generating all these ideas about how things are, how things should be, with suffering arising when they don't match.
But of course, only when there's thinking, there begin some attempts to analyze the situation, and to solve the problem of things being wrong. So thinking is both the source of the problem as well as the way to finding solution. While the situation before thinking is both ignorance and bliss, the primordial Eden without the conflict between right and wrong.
In the early phases of this evolutionary process, the emerging intelligence does not have any capacity for deliberate action. Think about a young child, can it plan its own destiny and decide where it's going? Then, as the intelligence matures, it grows stable and learns to plan ahead and execute its plans step by step. Of course, before it gets wise it keeps making all kinds of bad judgements and suffers their consequences. Why is that a surprise to you?

user14365: I have asked a similar or almost exactly the same question previously on this platform albeit with some Buddism lingua (link).
Please see the excellent answer given by @Mishu 米殊 crowned with her excellent statement " Volition the ability to discern doesn't get hindered by ignorance, although ignorance prevented it from knowing the correct answer immediately. 
As Plato said " we are all deprived of truth against our will" but we can seek it following the path directed by the Buddha or if we have a superior capacity following our own reasoning. 

user254: I don't know, I'm not sure what your background is -- I think the question would make sense, if you assume that "suffering" is a punishment imposed by God for sinning, i.e. for deliberately breaking (for "deliberately choosing" to break) one of God's commandments when you should have known better -- perhaps you're arguing that if you don't know then you are innocent and therefore shouldn't suffer.
I think a better analogy is something more like cancer, or any other apparent misfortune -- e.g. people suffer and die because they don't know how to cure it -- it isn't a question of whether it's fair (nor of divine punishment), it's a question of whether you've learned the insight and skill, maybe the habits, to undo the cause or to not do it in the first place.
Do people not have any freedom or autonomy?
I think they have a little. There's a sutta -- Chiggala Sutta: The Hole (SN 56.48) -- which suggests that we are fortunate to have been born human and in a time or place, where we can learn the Buddha's Dhamma.
Some people teach not only that the opportunity (to learn to practice) is rare, and nt only that we're fortunate to have access to the Dhamma, but also that it (i.e. the opportunity and the liberating effects) is a reason in itself for us to be happy.

Perhaps that's somewhat debatable though, a matter of perspective. Some people argue against the doctrine of "free will", saying that the physical world just does what it does and continues to do that, and that "people" are just conditioned i.e. that everything they do or think is just conditioned by one thing or another. I think that "free will" probably isn't a Buddhist doctrine -- but other people say (e.g. here) that an "exercise of free will" is "what makes Buddhist practice possible".

user13709: 
It makes no sense that a person would knowingly choose to be ignorant, yet people suffer for "their" ignorance anyway.

The arising of ignorance comes from that mysterious "neutral feeling".

There are three feelings: pleasant, painful, and neutral feeling 
  ...
  Anything felt physically or mentally as neither pleasurable nor painful.
  This is neutral feeling.”
  --MN44

In particular, we have:

The underlying tendency for ignorance underlies neutral feeling.

Consider what happens when we see someone who is neither pleasant or painful. When we see such a person, we have a neutral feeling. Having that neutral feeling, we might say to ourselves, ¨Meh. Don't know and don't care". In this way we choose ignorance. 
However we can also see deeper, directly know the person, wish them well and even greet them with a warm-hearted "Hello!". In this way we choose metta and wisdom over ignorance.
If one finds that indifference is a habitual response to neutral feelings, one may consider inquiry with enthusiasm as part of one's practice.

14288: <p>It makes no sense that a person would knowingly choose to be ignorant of what causes them suffering, yet people suffer for "their" ignorance anyway. </p>

<p>How is a person supposed to "freely/willingly choose" insight/knowledge if that choice is dependent upon already having some insight/knowledge? Are the persons choices before choosing insight/knowledge completely at random? Do people not have any freedom or autonomy?   </p>

<p>I think this may be another unanswerable question.   </p>
 43: <p>I agree with ChrisW here. Your question implies that you take it personally, while in reality it is an impersonal process. What seems like "you" and "your suffering" (as well as all other sentient beings with their respective experiences) arises from an accumulation and "clumping" of tendencies.</p>

<p>In the beginning these tendencies don't have any awareness, but over time they develop into something that can reflect and think, and once there is thinking, it starts generating all these ideas about how things are, how things should be, with suffering arising when they don't match.</p>

<p>But of course, only when there's thinking, there begin some attempts to analyze the situation, and to solve the problem of things being wrong. So thinking is both the source of the problem as well as the way to finding solution. While the situation before thinking is both ignorance and bliss, the primordial Eden without the conflict between right and wrong.</p>

<p>In the early phases of this evolutionary process, the emerging intelligence does not have any capacity for deliberate action. Think about a young child, can it plan its own destiny and decide where it's going? Then, as the intelligence matures, it grows stable and learns to plan ahead and execute its plans step by step. Of course, before it gets wise it keeps making all kinds of bad judgements and suffers their consequences. Why is that a surprise to you?</p>
 14365: <p>I have asked a similar or almost exactly the same question previously on this platform albeit with some Buddism lingua (<a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/20792/how-does-human-will-fit-with-prat%C4%ABtyasamutp%C4%81da">link</a>).</p>

<p>Please see the excellent answer given by @Mishu 米殊 crowned with her excellent statement " <strong><em>Volition the ability to discern doesn't get hindered by ignorance, although ignorance prevented it from knowing the correct answer immediately.</em></strong> </p>

<p>As Plato said " <em>we are all deprived of truth against our will</em>" but we can seek it following the path directed by the Buddha or if we have a superior capacity following our own reasoning. </p>
 254: <p>I don't know, I'm not sure what your background is -- I think the question would make sense, if you assume that "suffering" is a punishment imposed by God for sinning, i.e. for deliberately breaking (for "deliberately choosing" to break) one of God's commandments when you should have known better -- perhaps you're arguing that if you don't know then you are innocent and therefore shouldn't suffer.</p>

<p>I think a better analogy is something more like cancer, or any other apparent misfortune -- e.g. people suffer and die because they don't know how to cure it -- it isn't a question of whether it's fair (nor of divine punishment), it's a question of whether you've learned the insight and skill, maybe the habits, to undo the cause or to not do it in the first place.</p>

<p><strong>Do people not have any freedom or autonomy?</strong></p>

<p>I think they have a little. There's a sutta -- <a href="https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn56/sn56.048.than.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Chiggala Sutta: The Hole (SN 56.48)</a> -- which suggests that we are fortunate to have been born human and in a time or place, where we can learn the Buddha's Dhamma.</p>

<p>Some people teach not only that the opportunity (to learn to practice) is rare, and nt only that we're fortunate to have access to the Dhamma, but also that it (i.e. the opportunity and the liberating effects) is a reason in itself for us to be happy.</p>

<hr>

<p>Perhaps that's somewhat debatable though, a matter of perspective. Some people argue against the doctrine of "free will", saying that the physical world just does what it does and continues to do that, and that "people" are just conditioned i.e. that everything they do or think is just conditioned by one thing or another. I think that "free will" probably isn't a Buddhist doctrine -- but other people say (e.g. <a href="https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.101.than.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">here</a>) that an "exercise of free will" is "what makes Buddhist practice possible".</p>
 13709: <blockquote>
  <p>It makes no sense that a person would knowingly choose to be ignorant, yet people suffer for "their" ignorance anyway.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The arising of ignorance comes from that mysterious "neutral feeling".</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>There are three feelings: pleasant, painful, and neutral feeling 
  ...
  Anything felt physically or mentally as neither pleasurable nor painful.
  This is neutral feeling.”
  <a href="https://suttacentral.net/mn44/en/sujato" rel="nofollow noreferrer">--MN44</a></p>
</blockquote>

<p>In particular, we have:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>The underlying tendency for ignorance underlies neutral feeling.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Consider what happens when we see someone who is neither pleasant or painful. When we see such a person, we have a neutral feeling. Having that neutral feeling, we might say to ourselves, ¨Meh. Don't know and don't care". In this way we choose ignorance. </p>

<p>However we can also see deeper, directly know the person, wish them well and even greet them with a warm-hearted "Hello!". In this way we choose metta and wisdom over ignorance.</p>

<p>If one finds that indifference is a habitual response to neutral feelings, one may consider <a href="https://suttacentral.net/sn51.13" rel="nofollow noreferrer">inquiry with enthusiasm</a> as part of one's practice.</p>
