From here there are many paths...
"Deliberate vs inadvertent" describes whether we know about the effect the decision has on the utility function.
"Reckless vs prudent" describes whether we are rational and realize that decisions have consequences.
It is also possible that we don't actually have a utility function. Or different people involved in the decision have different utility functions or don't feel the same responsibility towards the outcome (not unheard of when it comes to maintenance/design/architecture vs feature).
What makes the debt metaphor very attractive is that it evokes an image of being in control. We may not have spelled out the utility function but everyone agrees it is bad now so we can pretend it was a rational choice we had. The alternative that we did not take any decision when we could have or were too distracted to see the consequences is much harder to accept. So now that we have debt, let's talk about whether we choose to pay it back or now.
Rather than working hard to create this faux image of control, I wonder how often teams may be better off having an honest discussion about what the utility function is or should be, which decisions will make the group move in the right direction and how the team can keep oneself accountable that the effects that one had in mind actually took place.