Even with a lack of alternatives you are still morally guilty.

subjects were asked to read a story about an agent who was forced by a group of armed hijackers to kill a man who had been having an affair with his wife. 

In the “low identification” condition, the man was described as being horrified at being forced to kill his wife’s lover, and as not wanting to do so. In the “high identification” condition, the man is instead described as welcoming the opportunity and wanting to kill his wife’s lover. In both cases, the man is not given a choice, and does kill his wife’s lover.

Consistent with Woolfolk and colleagues’ hypothesis, subjects judged that the highly identifying actor was more responsible, more appropriately blamed, and more properly subject to guilt than the low identification actor.[9] This pattern in folk moral judgments seems to suggest that participants were not consistently incompatibilist in their responsibility attributions, because the lack of alternatives available to the actor was not alone sufficient to rule out such attributions