A Fundamental Question

Is there a level of reality where it can be said that every perspective, if given a choice, would choose to make their net position better (no loopholes/hidden costs, etc.)? I have been considering today that, on this level of reality, "trust" would only need to extend as far as trusting that the other exists. If a solution can be found on this level that satisfies the basic requirement of making each position better (maximized across all iterations of agreement, presumably), then each party would agree. 

Could this still be considered a choice? Notice that "choosing" another option in this scenario would mean that choosing the option that appeared not to be most beneficial actually carried a net benefit from your perspective. On this level of reality you would likely be able to trace that path as well but recognize, without a step needing to be taken, that any hypothetical net gains by moving would remain, in the same way, from the new position (this is now reminding me of the experiment to bring the local temperature below absolute zero, as defined by thermodynamics). Perhaps it could be said that this hypothetical field of improvement by moving, both real and unreachable, is the choice that you have and always retain from this perspective.