One plausible account relies on reasonably foreseeable consequences to ground responsibility, and this is pretty much my view.

I can understand that. I have not dug quite so deeply into this area of my ethical map so it could be representing the territory poorly. What little mental exercises I have done have led me to this point.

I guess the example that really puts me in a pickle is asking what would happen if Jack knew the door was rigged but opened it anyway. It makes sense that Jack shares the blame. There seems to be something in me that says the physical action weighs against Jack.

So, if I had to write it up quickly:

• Being a physical cause in a chain of events that leads to harm
• While knowing the physical action has a high likelihood of leading to harm
• Is evil

But, on the other hand:

• Being a non-physical cause in a chain of events that leads to harm
• While knowing the non-physical action has a high likelihood of leading to harm
• Is not necessarily evil but can be sometimes

Weird. That sure seems like an inconsistency to me. Looks like I need to get the mapmaking tools out. The stickiness of the eleventh man is that the king is another moral entity and the king somehow shrouds the eleventh from actually making a moral choice. But I do not have justification for that distinction.

There may yet be justification, but working backwards is not proper. Once I get the whole thing worked out I will report what I find, if you are interested.