Ron, can we review a particular scenario you commented on before and then another which is nearly identical, I have some questions?
In 2010 you wrote:
"A robber compels a store manager at gunpoint to give him the combination to the store safe, so that he can rob the store. The manager gives him the combination; his act is material cooperation with an intrinsically evil and gravely immoral act. But this material cooperation is also moral.
1. intention, to save his own life; he does not intend any harm to the store.
2. the act of giving the combination to the safe is not intrinsically evil. The moral object of his act is to protect innocent life by giving information to another person.
3. the good consequence of saving his own innocent life outweighs the bad consequence of the loss of money to the store."
In the above scenario would it also be moral to not comply with the robbers demands, perhaps just staying silent? What if the store manager pulled his own firearm and shot the robber?
A man walks into a bank, approaches a specific teller, aims a gun at the teller and demands that the teller give him all of the money in the drawer.
If the teller decided to give the robber the money in this scenario would it still be moral material cooperation? Are there any other choices which would be moral? What if the teller decided not to comply with the robbers demands? What if the teller drew his own gun and shot the robber?