Moral Conundrum

Christian philosopher Victor Reppert raises an interesting question about moral choices (here).  He describes a hypothetical situation where one is faced with a dilemma - to choose between allowing a man to be murdered, or stealing a million dollars to prevent the murder from happening. This is his post in its entirety (which contains a mistake that I have bracketed):

Here is an interesting ethical question. Suppose Smith knows for sure that if he steals $1.000,000, Jones will not murder Williams. But if he does not steal $1,000,000, then Jones will [not] murder Williams. If he steals, of course he's a thief, but if he doesn't steal, does that mean he's an accessory before the fact to murder? See what trouble you get into when you ask questions like this to a philosopher? - Reppert

It's interesting to Victor, presumably, because of the moral conundrum.  The unfortunate person presented with this choice has no way to escape the commission of a sin.  No matter what his choice is, he is doing something wrong in the eyes of God.  And you get yourself into trouble by asking a philosopher to pontificate on this question.  I think what Victor really means to say is that you get the philosopher into trouble by presenting a question he is not prepared to answer.