The Argument for Grudges argues that once someone finds a reason to be angry, they are allowed to be angry forever.

The Argument for Revenge argues that revenge is essentially how people hold each other morally responsible.

Callard uses both the Argument for Grudges and the Argument for Revenge to argue that grudges and revenge are perfectly rational, and play a significant role in moral reasoning.

Green= Sub-claims

Red= Counterpoints

Yellow= Rebuttal

Purple= Definitions of key concepts

White= Conclusion

Martha Nussbaum argues that anger is a method of moral sensibility that allows people to object to being treated with disrespect without the presence of anger.

"Nussbaum speaks of 'transition anger,' which is not so much anger as 'quasi-anger': 'the entire content of one’s emotion is, ‘How outrageous! Something must be done about this'" (Callard, 2020, p. 4).

Fredrick Nietzsche argues that revenge can result in a sense of duty or moral strength. People seek revenge to gain a sense of justice and uphold moral order.

"The negative or reactive morality we have ended up with foregrounds the concepts of guilt, conscience, promises, and duty" (Callard, 2020, p. 10).

"victims of injustice are not as innocent as we would like to believe. Either these victims are morally compromised by the vengeful and grudge-bearing character of their anger, or they are morally compromised by acquiescence" (Callard, 2020, p. 13).

"What started out as a battle over anger ends with everyone agreeing to avoid using that word. Instead, both sides prefer to segregate the 'moral side' of anger (Tuesday’s anger, which takes the form of rational and justified protest at injustice) from the 'dark side' (Thursday’s anger, which takes the form of irrational grudges and unjustifiable vengeance)" (Callard, 2020, p. 4).