By contrasting alternative moral responses to inequality Joseph P. DeMarco and Samuel A. Richmond have identified a major area of contemporary moral uncertainty. Some readers will object to the fact that their argument is buttressed by reference to a “no growth” future that is said to make obsolete the ethical answers that have satisfied us in the past. And indeed a strong argument can be made that growth will be with us for a long while yet, and this is almost surely the case if growth is seen qualitatively rather than quantitatively. However, their emphasis on this contemporary question should not be allowed to lead us astray, for the dilemmas of inequality are always with us. Most ethical thought has occurred in societies with essentially no growth presuppositions, and whatever doctrines we favor must be able to deal with such conditions. It is on this more fundamental, timeless, level that the argument should move.

The 400 block of Clymer Avenue in Mattapan once boasted a line of gorgeous houses with handsome lawns and sizable garages. Forty years ago those who knew the area would have called the block and a few blocks surrounding it the neighborhood of the hoi polloi. There was, however, a smugness about those who lived in that block, it was said. And because they were Jews, it was also said, they should have known better and treated others who didn't have as much more kindly. After all, if the Jews don't help each other, who will?

In time the neighborhood around Clymer Avenue changed. Most of the rich families moved to Jamaica Plain, Brookline, and Newton. Some families moved as far away as Lexington to the north. All but a few of the grand homes were tom down, and simple, efficient apartment buildings erected in their place.

At 4:15 on the rainy afternoon of February 3, 1975, a San Diego Sheriff's Department SWAT (Special Weapons and Tactics) team mistakenly shot and killed fifteen-year-old Leland Phelps in Oceanside, California. The boy was being held hostage by a barricaded sniper. Seconds after Phelps was shot his captor, an out-of-work twenty-year-old carpenter, took his own life. A large gathering of spectators had pressed in to watch the drama. Many who saw what happened, and many others who later analyzed it on the basis of reports, blamed the police for the outcome. There is a widespread feeling that the police themselves created the situation, spawning circumstances of confusion and fear from which, in the language of law enforcement, “fatal force” was the logical result.

Rarely have Israelis felt more frustrated and alone.“ Newspapers are filled with such reports—this one from the New York Times following the U.S.-Israel feud over PLO attendance at the Security Council Middle East “debate” and the lingering bitterness over the “Saunders document.” At this moment Geneva seems distant and the Saunders statement more of a beginning than anyone will admit, even if there might be a respite until after the American election. Following a visit to the U.S., Knesset member Aharon Yariv, formerly the Minister of Information, is back in Israel publicly warning that U.S. support for Israel's political posture is waning and that America is moving toward recognition of the PLO and possible advocacy of a Palestinian state.