As individuals residing in a community, one should hold several identities, thus leading to a variety of moral responsibilities one must carry. One clear example that reflects this condition is the Bulger Brother’s case. William Bulger, as a member of his family, has the obligation to be loyal to his brother. However, at the same time, he is responsible to obey the law that applies in his community — specifically in this case is to bring a criminal to justice. He was faced with a predicament that enforced him to choose between two moral responsibilities that are mutually exclusive. Upholding impartiality in this case would mean acting for the greater good of public, and consequently renders the violation of family obligation. As a president of Massachusetts State Senate, he was expected to set an example. However, he made the wrong decision by defending his felonious brother. It was believed that William Bulger was morally reprehensible in refusing to assist the authorities as family loyalty should not precede impartiality. This analysis of the case will be elaborated in the following paragraphs. To warrant my statement, the theory of moral responsibilities and utilitarian approach will be taken into consideration. To impartially resolve a moral dilemma, one ought to choose between the options that has greater weight. In order to determine the weights of moral responsibilities, a theory is greatly needed. One theory can be taken from Michael J. Sandel’s book entitled