Informed of this study's topic, people sometimes ask: “Which side do you favor – the nearest or the neediest?” I have to reply that I cannot answer a query so worded. If my child begs for a dune buggy and the starving beg for food, I should favor the neediest. If my child is starving and so is a stranger, I should favor the nearest. The question requires more careful, specific formulation.

The same need, of greater care and precision, has often been apparent. Simple formulations have yielded simple solutions – too simple to be useful – on one side and the other.

A SAMPLING

On the side of the neediest, Domingo de Soto advised: “Where there is doubt, judgment should go for the poor rather than against them.” Apparently, then, in Ewing's case judgment should favor the starving rather than the son – provided there is doubt. But is there doubt? Should there be? Does poverty automatically trump all competing considerations? If not, how are we to explain or justify de Soto's judgment for the poor in all doubtful cases? Perhaps it echoes St. Louis's counsel to his son: “Always side with the poor rather than with the rich, until you are certain of the truth” – that is, until you are sure about the facts. However, in cases of the kind that concern us – cases like Ewing's – if the facts are as stated or supposed, the doubt remains. The facts are the source of the doubt.