Abstract

Reinhold Niebuhr, the father of Christian realism, died in the early 1970s. Since that time, discussions in theological ethics have been dominated by two competing accounts of just-war rationality: the presumption against harm position (PAH) and the presumption against injustice position (PAI). Starting from the accounts of moral tragedy found in the PAI and PAH positions, this article argues that there are reasons for Christian realists to reject both positions. Basil Mitchell’s account of ‘cumulative case’ argumentation provides a model for arguing about war that better fits with Christian realism than either of these alternative positions.