"I believe that we should not be too quick to pathologize this inference or dismiss it as a psychological tic. I will offer two arguments—the Argument for Grudges and the Argument for Revenge—that link those premises to those conclusions, suggesting that the reasoning in question is, in fact, valid. If we can’t purify morality, we can’t purify anger."(5)

"The Argument for Revenge is simply that revenge is how we hold one another morally responsible."(8)

Callard challenges the idea that revenge is irrational. While many believe revenge is about personal satisfaction, she argues that it reinforces moral order. If wrongdoers never face consequences, moral values lose their meaning. Revenge, in an ideal sense, is not about petty retaliation but about ensuring justice.

Callard argues that holding a grudge is not a sign of weakness but a way of recognizing that some wrongs remain unresolved. A grudge reflects the idea that moral harm does not fade with time. If someone betrays you and never acknowledges their wrongdoing, forgetting it might not be a rational choice—it might instead be a way of ignoring the truth. If injustice truly matters, then remaining angry about an unresolved wrong is a rational moral stance, not an emotional failure.

Stoicism presents a direct challenge to Callard’s argument by emphasizing that anger is a destructive and counterproductive emotion. According to Stoic philosophy, true wisdom is achieved by mastering one’s emotions, rather than allowing them to dictate actions. Instead of seeking revenge, Stoics believe in maintaining virtue, composure, and self-discipline, ensuring that moral strength is not dependent on punishing others but on personal resilience.

Blue- Counterarguments

yellow- References

CA #- Counterargument and its number

"The negative or reactive morality we have ended up with foregrounds the concepts of guilt, conscience, promises, and duty. Nietzsche says these concepts are 'soaked in blood thoroughly and for a long time. And might one not add that, fundamentally, this world has never since lost a certain odor of blood and torture?'" (9)

"Foucault’s thesis is that although these reforms were couched in the eighteenth-century language of human rights, their aim was to turn punishment into a focused attack on the prisoner’s human rights... Foucault then builds outward from the prison and argues that we can see the values of our society inscribed in the methodology of forcible restraint that characterizes such social artifacts as schools, examinations, timetables, and professional careers. The way we value freedom, autonomy, self-determination, and human rights is by taking those things away from people at every turn." (10)

Buddhism offers another counterargument by emphasizing detachment from suffering, including anger, resentment, and revenge. In Buddhist philosophy, holding grudges only deepens personal suffering. True enlightenment, according to Buddhism, is found through letting go of anger and embracing compassion, forgiveness, and understanding.

"Girard begins from the observation that every form of human community is threatened by one basic problem: once one act of violence happens, it threatens to set off a chain reaction of limitless retaliatory violence. According to Girard, what drives this chain reaction is nothing other than the moral horror at violence"(9)

"What do these views have in common, after all? Nietzsche says we have built our whole morality out of resentful bloodlust; Girard says that violence and the opposition to violence are one; Foucault says that punishment is crime. The common denominator is the observation that human morality has a tendency to turn in on itself. Being a good person means, at times, being willing to do bad things." (11)

Martha Nussbaum, drawing from Stoicism, sees anger as vengeful and backward-looking, advocating for prevention over retribution. Owen Flanagan, influenced by Buddhism and Confucianism, views anger as hostile and based on a flawed, self-centered view of others. Both reject anger as justified, emphasizing rational and constructive responses instead.

"In the contemporary world, the philosopher Martha Nussbaum draws on Seneca and the Stoic tradition to argue that anger is an intrinsically mistaken attitude, since it is infected with a backward-looking “payback wish” that is vengeful and destructive. The correct response to any setback or injustice, in her view, is forward-looking: preventing similar events from occurring in the future. In a similar vein, Owen Flanagan, who draws on both Śāntideva’s Buddhism and a Confucian-inflected metaphysics, sees anger as an intrinsically hostile attitude, one that falsely presupposes a self-centered metaphysics of individuals who possess 'intentions to be cruel, and to do harm or evil.'"(2)

A sentimentalist is someone who believes that emotions are fundamental to moral understanding and accountability. Rooted in Aristotle’s idea that emotions help us perceive moral value, sentimentalism was later developed by British thinkers like Hume and Smith, who saw feelings as central to moral judgment. Contemporary philosophers continue this tradition, emphasizing that morality is deeply tied to human emotions.

"This pro-anger position has its roots in Aristotle’s view that the (well-trained) passions are what allow the 'eye of the soul' to perceive moral value, and finds its fullest expression in the British moral sentimentalists of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. The Earl of Shaftesbury, Frances Hutcheson, David Hume, and Adam Smith all held that our feelings are precisely what sensitize us to moral considerations." (3)