Yes? They stayed and did not leave. Confucius asking the woman did not create that option. It was always there.
My personal thought would also be that one has significantly higher chances to succeed against a tiger than a government, including much more control over whether a tiger attacks in the first place (for example, fences or not going out alone would already improve your chances significantly, which would do nothing against government officials).
nosianu says "one has significantly higher chances to succeed against a tiger than a government"
I don't think so! A tiger will kill you in the blink of an eye.
As for fences: while clearing land for the British railway lines in India, it was sometimes necessary to bring in skilled tiger hunters to eradicate these beasts. In one attack, for example, a tiger jumped a high fence (intended to keep tigers out) around a human encampment, seized a victim, jumped over the fence again carrying his prey and ran away with the meal.
I don't doubt that. But the story just demonstrates survivor bias, literally. Surely there's a better way to illustrate the point. As it is the obvious fallacy makes me inherently skeptical of a conclusion that I'm otherwise inclined to agree with.