C tells A, “If you shoot B, I’ll have D kidnap E.” Implied is that if A shoots C, then E dies.
Is A in any way morally responsible for the kidnapping of E? Would A in any way be morally responsible for the death of E?
Someone posted earlier in another thread that “duress” is a defense in a criminal trial but no attorney here has seen it used…ever (not to say it has never happened but is very rare).
In short each act is distinct.
That said if you can say that “A” knows the knock-on effects of shooting “B” with certainty (i.e. that “E” dies) then sure…“A” would have to consider that so it is a moral question for “A”.
When one considers the morality of an action they must consider the effects of their action. If they can “know” the results as posed then sure, it is a consideration of theirs.
Quite a stretch though in this case.
All this shows that it’s a good idea not to hang around with people who have 1 letter names.
Mr T pities the fool who thinks that!
Was this supposed to be in the other thread?
I’d have to say that it depends on whether FGHIJKLMNOP and Q are in the jury. Those guys are really harsh when deciding moral responsibility, from what I’ve heard.
-XT
Here’s something even more of concern.
Joe Villain tells J Random Citizen that if J Random Citizen converts from Judaism to Christianity, then Joe Villain will kill Suzie Innocent. Under US law, J Random Citizen has an unqualified constitutional right to convert to Christianity.
If he does, believing that Joe Villain will retaliate by killing Suzie Innocent, is he legally responsible for the murder?
What if the duress was for a negative act, in that Joe Villain said that unless Citizen converts back to Judaism from Christianity, he will kill Innocent, and then Citizen refuses to re-convert, citing Constitutional rights. It seems bizarre that any criminal liability can be attached to him for this.
No. Note the different thread titles.
What if kidnap victim E struggles against D, and in the struggle, D falls out of a window and crushes innocent bystander F, killing F. F was the breadwinner for a family including child G. Child G loses health insurance after the death of F, cannot afford a liver transplant in time due to policy changes made by insurance company CEO H (changes mandated by the legislation introduced by senator I), and dies. Who is morally responsible for the death of G?
Each threat is distinct.
“If you don’t do what I say, I will shoot B."
“If you shoot B, I’ll have D kidnap E.”
Notice that the threat by A (“I will shoot B”) becomes the conditional of C (“If you shoot B”).
Who created this situation, i.e. the hostage situation? In the other thread, Little Nemo mindfully elaborated that A threatened a hostage. No, A didn’t threaten a hostage - C did, after a fashion. Perhaps, it’s not bank robbers like Little Nemo supposed. Rather, it’s the mob or perhaps something else.
**xtisme **- Does only one person have any control of the situation?
G simply angered the gods.
What if the threat is a bluff? There is no D! 
B believes D will kidnap E.
Depends on how you set up the scenario. If more than one person are actually deciding the fate of some other then all those involved in the actual decision are responsible for the decision. However, if you are compelling or extorting a decision from another with a threat to a third party, then you are ultimately and solely responsible. Don’t you think?
-XT
I think C turns the threat into the conditional of a bluff. See this post.
C creates “tension” when he shouts, “If you shoot B, I’ll have D kidnap E.” What is really happening here? First, with the conditional (“If you shoot B”), the “heat” is taken off of C and transfered to B. Second, with the bluff (“I’ll have D kidnap E”), the “uncertainty” is taken off of C and transfered to A.
A knows that B believes D will kidnap E.
So what’s A next move?
Chicka Chicka Boom Boom!
“If you don’t do what I say, I will shoot B.”
“If you shoot B, I’ll have D kidnap E.”
A knows that B believes D will kidnap E.
D will kidnap E.
A does not want E kidnapped.
Therefore, A will not shoot B.
Q.E.D. 
Hmmm… I think I shall have to find a different crowd, to “hang out” with. Quite a few of my current friends go by one initial. :rolleyes:
No, it’s that A knows or should know the knock-on effects of saying “If you don’t do what I say, I’ll shoot B.” with certainty (see this post). That D will kidnap E is tacit knowledge. That the proposition (i.e. A knows that B believes D will kidnap E) is a Gettier problem.
Does C know that A will not shoot B?