This does not absolve the individual, for he or she is still responsible (in the sense we have indicated) for the action that he or she undertook.

The moral or ethical involvement of the individual may be lessened in this case, since the individual was forced to act against his will in the matter, but he or she is still responsible for having performed the act.

He or she might have chosen otherwise. True, such refusal might have brought about the individual's death or other some terrible punishment, but he could have made that decision, and refused to act.

We might indeed be willing to pass all of the blame onto the person or persons who forced the individual to act against his will, but from the standpoint of precise reasoning, the individual performing the act is the one who performed the act and is responsible for having performed the act, whomever we blame and hold to account afterwards.

In this same sense, a two-year-old infant who topples over an expensive vase, resulting in its destruction, is responsible for toppling the vase and for its destruction.

Obviously, the two-year-old is unfamiliar with the abstract reasoning behind the concept of responsibility. Nevertheless, the child performed the act.

Consider the reverse situation and you will better understand why this is true.