Abstract

This article takes up the stock anti-pacifist question, "What would you do if someone dependent upon you were being attacked ... ?" for serious analysis as an ethical case. It is shown that this question does not bear the relationship to the issue of using violence in war that it is usually assumed to have. The author illustrates how some who use the casuistic test question tend to prejudge the decision by assuming a view of reality less open than that of Christian faith.