himself, he has neither choice nor will; rather, his will and choice are directed towards not performing that act.

The reality is that he has two wills. His original will is not to do this; indeed, he dislikes it, detests it, and recoils from it. Yet he has no way to achieve this except by doing what he has been compelled to do. For this reason, a second will arises within him that conflicts with the first. Thus, although this coerced person is rational, he acts contrary to his original will and choice. He acts with another will and another choice, and he also acts through his own ability. His action can therefore properly be subject to commands, prohibitions, and permission. Thus, it is said that he is permitted to speak, but forbidden to kill a person whose life is inviolable. As for a man coerced into unlawful sexual intercourse, some jurists say that he cannot be considered coerced because he acts with ability and choice. This is incorrect. Likewise, a hungry, impoverished person who steals to eat incurs no sin. His hunger has compelled him to adopt that will and choice: the harm he has suffered has driven him to this will and action.

As for the person upon whom an act is performed, who serves as the locus of another’s action and as his instrument, such as a woman or