Abstract

In this contribution we investigate the conceptual coherence of penal substitution and its moral validity. After assessing two opposing modern contributions, we turn to Reformed and medieval scholasticism. This scholastic manoeuvre sheds additional light on the analytic questions at issue. Following Owen and Scotus in their use of a relational analysis of guilt and its punishment, we argue that penal substitution is conceptually and morally coherent, albeit not univocally vis-à-vis ordinary punishment. Absent from the case of substitution is personal deservedness; herein we follow Murphy. However, this leaves open the conceptual possibility of representative deservedness.