The New Testament favors the neediest rather than the nearest, though not as decisively as Matthew 25:31 – 46 might suggest. The Church Fathers speak more explicitly on the same side, and their comparison of letting die with killing tells weightily against Ewing's verdict. Innovations in the Thomistic tradition might blunt this objection but do not, since they lack validity. And the fact that in EC many would die, not just one, further strengthens the case for the neediest. However, a final judgment must wait; for contemporary discussions add new arguments on both sides – especially Ewing's. The present chapter builds to a confrontation between the strongest arguments for and against his verdict.

FOR THE NEEDIEST

Aside from stressing the preciousness of every human life, within a Christian perspective, it seems that little more can be said against Ewing's stance and in favor of the starving. If, for example, it is urged that the starving have a right to assistance, it may be countered that the son, too, has rights: a right to paternal support, and a right to a good education. If it is alleged that the father's bank account is traceable, in part, to First-World exploitation of the poor, even so his prosperity cannot be traced to the particular persons who might benefit from his assistance, hence cannot establish a right of those persons to restitution. If divine impartiality is proposed as a model (“He has the same loving concern for each person he has created”), it may be noted that all are equally children of God but all are not equally children of any human parent, and that this difference may have moral significance.