Argument

The Justice and Mercy Argument

Intro

We want two things that seem to fight each other. When someone hurts a child, we want justice: we do not want a judge to shrug and let it go. Letting the guilty walk free is itself a wrong. But we also want mercy, especially for ourselves. We know we have done wrong, and we long to be forgiven, really forgiven, not just ignored.

Here is the problem. Mercy means not giving someone the punishment they deserve. Justice means giving them exactly what they deserve. So how can anyone be fully just and fully merciful at once? Philosophers have called this the paradox of mercy, and it is not a word game. Every family, court and church has felt it.

Most worldviews solve the problem by dropping one side. Some keep strict justice and leave no room for forgiveness. Some keep forgiveness by setting justice aside. Some say neither is real in the first place. Christianity claims to keep both at full strength in one act: on the cross, the Judge himself takes the penalty, so that God can be "just, and the justifier of him that hath faith in Jesus" (Romans 3:26, ASV). The Justice and Mercy Argument says that solution fits our two deepest moral needs better than any rival.

◎ See this page's graph and discover linked topics →

In full

The Justice and Mercy Argument is a comparative abduction with a valid spine. Its explanandum is a pair of moral data that most people judge to be true, not only felt: serious wrongs must not simply be waived (just deserts, Proverbs 17:15), and real mercy toward the guilty is good and needed (the psychology of forgiveness, Exodus 34:6). The data generate the paradox of mercy, analysed by Alwynne Smart (1968) and Jeffrie Murphy (1988): if mercy is what justice requires, it is not mercy, and if it departs from justice, it seems unjust. A deductive spine (P1 to P6) argues that an adequate account of the moral order must honour both data without contradiction; surveys the main candidates (naturalism, which dissolves both; impersonal karma, which keeps the account but has no forgiver; sovereign-pardon theism, which keeps mercy as an act of divine will but leaves the demand of P1 unmet as a demand; and rabbinic Judaism, which holds justice and mercy together as two measures in God, gives mercy the upper hand, and holds that repentance, with Yom Kippur and in the gravest cases suffering or death, is the answer justice asks); and argues that Christian atonement, in which God himself bears the penalty in the person of the Son, satisfies both. The evidence comes from moral psychology, the philosophy of punishment, the comparative study of religions and Christian theology. The conclusion is comparative and confirmatory: the data are better accommodated by Christian theism than by its rivals. It does not by itself prove the doctrine of the atonement, and the deity of the one who pays is argued at The Ought-Owe Argument, not re-argued here.

Format note

This is a braided case, the house format for new Ris3n Arguments: a valid spine, each premise with independent strands, a knot, a ledger and a defeater gate. This one is a comparative abduction: its ledger compares worldviews, not only theism and naturalism. It braids four fields. Justice contributes the philosophy and law of punishment and the principle that guilt must not be waived. Psychology contributes research on just-deserts intuitions and on forgiveness and health. History of religions contributes how karma, Islam, rabbinic Judaism and other traditions handle guilt and pardon. Theology contributes the atonement and the text of Romans 3:21-26.

The spine

Validity. P1 to P3 establish the data and the tension. P4 states the condition any account must meet. P5 applies it to the candidates. If P5 is correct, only Christian atonement meets the condition, so by P4 the data favour it. The form is a comparative abduction: elimination of rivals on a stated criterion, then confirmation of the survivor.

Strength of the conclusion. Confirmatory and comparative. The argument is only as strong as the reader's confidence in P1 and P2 and in the fairness of the survey in P5. Each rival has thoughtful defenders who would describe their own view differently, and the P5 section tries to state their best replies.

P1, Unwaived justice

Inductive strand

1. Just deserts drive punishment. Kevin Carlsmith, John Darley and Paul Robinson, "Why Do We Punish? Deterrence and Just Deserts as Motives for Punishment" (Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 83, 2002), found that ordinary people's sentencing judgments were highly sensitive to the seriousness of the offence and largely insensitive to deterrence factors, even when they said they valued deterrence.
2. Waiving is a wrong. "He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the righteous, Both of them alike are an abomination to Jehovah" (Proverbs 17:15, ASV). God "will by no means clear the guilty" (Exodus 34:7; Nahum 1:3).
3. Victims' standing. Philosophers of forgiveness, notably Murphy in Forgiveness and Mercy, insist that self-respect and respect for the moral order can make immediate, unconditional forgiveness a vice: it can fail to take the wrong, and the victim, seriously.

Abductive strand

Convergence

Experimental psychology (Carlsmith and colleagues), the retributive tradition in the philosophy of law, Murphy's secular moral philosophy and the Hebrew Scriptures reach P1 by different routes. See Argument from Justice and The Cold Case Argument.

Objections and rebuttals

1. "Retribution is just revenge." Rebuttal. Revenge is personal and unlimited; retributive justice is impartial and proportioned. Scripture forbids the first (Romans 12:19) while requiring the second. See The Scales Argument.

P2, Real mercy

Inductive strand

1. Forgiveness research. Everett Worthington (Forgiveness and Reconciliation, 2006) and Robert Enright (Forgiveness Is a Choice, 2001) developed intervention models that have been tested in many trials.
2. The meta-analysis. Nathaniel Wade, William Hoyt, Julia Kidwell and Everett Worthington, "Efficacy of Psychotherapeutic Interventions to Promote Forgiveness: A Meta-Analysis" (Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 82, 2014), found that forgiveness interventions increased forgiveness relative to controls, with gains related to time spent, and were associated with reductions in depression and anxiety.
3. The injustice gap. Julie Exline, Everett Worthington, Peter Hill and Michael McCullough, "Forgiveness and Justice: A Research Agenda for Social and Personality Psychology" (Personality and Social Psychology Review 7, 2003), set out how perceived injustice and forgiveness interact; Worthington's term "injustice gap" names the distance between how things are and how a victim would see the wrong resolved.
4. The universal longing. Rituals of confession, expiation and pardon recur across cultures. See Argument from Forgiveness and Argument from the Confession-Catharsis Convergence.

Abductive strand

Convergence

Clinical psychology (Wade and colleagues), social psychology (Exline and colleagues), philosophy of forgiveness (Murphy, Hampton) and the world's religious traditions reach P2. See Biblical Forgiveness.

Objections and rebuttals

1. "Forgiveness is for the forgiver's mental health." Rebuttal. It helps the forgiver, as the data show. But the guilty person's longing is to be forgiven, which no amount of self-care supplies.

P3, The collision

Inductive strand

1. Smart's analysis. Alwynne Smart, "Mercy" (Philosophy 43, 1968), treated mercy as choosing, from benevolence, to impose less than the deserved punishment, and argued it is unjustified in several cases, including where the offender is unrepentant or where it harms the authority of law.
2. Murphy's dilemma. Jeffrie Murphy, "Mercy and Legal Justice" (in Murphy and Hampton, Forgiveness and Mercy, Cambridge, 1988), pressed the worry that if mercy is a virtue distinct from justice, then a merciful act departs from justice and so seems unjust; and if justice already requires the lesser penalty, the act is just and not mercy at all. Murphy was sceptical of the Christian emphasis on forgiveness; Jean Hampton, in the same book, offered a qualified defence of it.
3. Anselm's version. Anselm, Cur Deus Homo (1098), asked why God could not simply forgive by mercy alone, and answered that to remit sin without satisfaction would leave the order of justice unrepaired.

Abductive strand

The tension is not an illusion produced by bad definitions. Secular legal philosophy (Smart, Murphy) and medieval theology (Anselm) independently reach it. A worldview must either show the tension is only apparent or resolve it.

Convergence

Analytic philosophy of law, medieval theology and the daily experience of parents and judges converge on P3.

Objections and rebuttals

1. "Mercy is just a lighter sentence within the range justice allows." Rebuttal. For minor matters, perhaps. For the guilty who deserve the full weight, that answer gives no mercy at all, and Scripture's claim is that God forgives the guilty, not the half-guilty (Romans 4:5).

P4, The adequacy condition

Inductive strand

1. How theories are judged. A theory that implies some of its own central data are false, or that cannot accommodate two well-established data at once, is disconfirmed relative to one that can. This is ordinary practice in science and philosophy.
2. The data are moral truths. P1 and P2 are not offered as mere wants. Most people judge that a judge who frees a murderer from sympathy has done wrong, and that a parent who forgives a repentant child has done right. The argument takes those judgments as data.

Abductive strand

A rival could reject P4 by saying moral data carry no evidential weight. That is the naturalist's move, priced in the ledger.

Convergence

Standard philosophy of science (explanatory scope and consistency) and moral epistemology (reflective equilibrium) agree on P4.

Objections and rebuttals

1. "You've built the conclusion into the criterion." Rebuttal. The criterion is neutral: honour both data. Any worldview could meet it. The survey in P5 checks which do.

P5, The comparison

Inductive strand

1. Naturalism. On naturalism there is no objective guilt to be answered and no one with standing to forgive on behalf of the moral order. Both P1 and P2 survive only as feelings with useful functions. See Moral Anti-Realism Defeater.
2. Impersonal karma. In the karma traditions of India, moral causation is often presented as a law that returns consequences to the doer without a judge. It honours P1 strictly. In its impersonal form it has no one to forgive, though important devotional traditions add divine grace: the Bhagavad Gita (18:66) has Krishna promise to release the devotee from all sins, and Pure Land Buddhism rests on the vow of Amida Buddha. On those readings the question becomes how grace relates to the law of consequence, and the traditions answer it differently. See Karma, Hinduism vs the Christian God and Buddhism vs the Christian God.
3. Sovereign-pardon theism. In mainstream Sunni Islam God forgives whom he wills (Quran 3:129), good deeds outweigh or remove evil deeds (Quran 11:114), deeds are weighed on the Day of Judgment (Quran 21:47), and no one bears another's burden (Quran 6:164). Mercy is real and abundant, and it is an act of divine sovereignty that requires no satisfaction. A Muslim theologian would say God's justice is not violated because he is its author and his pardon is just by definition. The argument's question is whether that answer meets P1 as a demand, or redefines the demand away. See Islam vs the Christian God and Islam.
4. Rabbinic Judaism. Rabbinic Judaism also claims both data, from the same Scriptures, and is the closest rival. It holds justice and mercy together as two measures in God, gives mercy the upper hand, and teaches that repentance (teshuvah) is what the just God requires of the guilty. It is surveyed in its own words in the next subsection. See The Jewish Defense and Rabbinic Judaism vs the Christian God.
5. Christian atonement. On Christian theism God does not waive the debt and does not exact it from the guilty: he bears it himself, in the incarnate Son, so that "he might himself be just, and the justifier" (Romans 3:26). Justice is satisfied and mercy is given. See Atonement, Penal Substitutionary Atonement and Necessity of the Incarnation.

Rabbinic Judaism, the two measures

The rabbinic tradition does not drop either datum. It names both as attributes of God, works out how they relate, and builds an account of atonement that does not depend on the Temple. In its own sources:

1. Two measures in God. The rabbis speak of God's middat ha-din, the measure of justice, and middat ha-rachamim, the measure of mercy. Sifre on Deuteronomy (Sifre Devarim 26, on Deuteronomy 3:24) teaches that wherever the divine name YHWH appears it denotes the measure of mercy, citing "Jehovah, Jehovah, a God merciful and gracious" (Exodus 34:6), and wherever Elohim appears it denotes the measure of judgment, citing Exodus 22:9 (22:8 in the Hebrew numbering), where elohim is read as the judges. See YHWH, elohim, rachamim and mishpat.
2. The world held by both. Genesis Rabbah 12:15, on "the LORD God" in Genesis 2:4, gives the parable of a king with fragile empty cups. Hot water would shatter them and cold water would crack them, so he mixed hot and cold, and they endured. So God said: if I create the world with the measure of mercy alone, sinners will multiply; with justice alone, the world cannot endure; I will create it with both. Rashi, on Genesis 1:1, draws the same lesson: God first intended to create under strict justice, saw that the world could not endure, and gave precedence to mercy, joining it with justice.
3. Mercy given the upper hand. In b. Berakhot 7a God himself is said to pray: "May it be My will that My mercy will overcome My anger ... and may I conduct myself toward My children, Israel, with the attribute of mercy, and may I enter before them beyond the letter of the law." In b. Rosh Hashanah 17b the Thirteen Attributes of Exodus 34:6-7 become an order of prayer God taught Moses, with the promise that "a covenant was made with the thirteen attributes that they will not return empty-handed." The same page resolves the pairing of justice and kindness in Psalm 62:12 and Psalm 145:17: God judges first by strict justice, and at the time of punishment acts in kindness.
4. "Will by no means clear" read through repentance. The verse this page cites for P1, Exodus 34:7, is read differently in b. Yoma 86a. Rabbi Elazar notes that the Hebrew says both "clearing" and "will not clear," and concludes that God clears those who repent and does not clear those who do not. On this reading the verse states a condition, repentance, not a demand for a penalty borne.
5. Graded atonement. Mishnah Yoma 8:8-9 and b. Yoma 86a set out what atones. Repentance alone atones for lighter transgressions. For graver prohibitions, repentance suspends the punishment and Yom Kippur atones. For sins carrying karet or a court death penalty, repentance and Yom Kippur suspend it and suffering completes the atonement. For desecration of God's name, only death completes it. Yom Kippur does not atone for a wrong against a neighbour until the neighbour is appeased, and the person who says "I will sin and Yom Kippur will atone" gains no atonement. Sin is not treated lightly: its gravity governs what is required.
6. Atonement without the Temple. Avot de-Rabbi Natan 4 tells how Rabbi Joshua, seeing the Temple in ruins, mourned "the place where atonement was made for the sins of Israel," and Yohanan ben Zakkai answered: "we have another means of atonement which is as effective, and that is, the practice of lovingkindness," citing Hosea 6:6. Maimonides later codified the point: with no Temple and no altar of atonement, nothing remains but repentance, and repentance atones for all sins (Mishneh Torah, Laws of Repentance 1:3).
7. Grace, not bookkeeping. E. P. Sanders (Paul and Palestinian Judaism, 1977) argued against the older Christian picture of rabbinic religion as earning salvation by merit. On his reading, membership in the covenant rests on God's election, and repentance and atonement are the means God provides for staying in it.

Where the two faiths agree. Both hold that God is just and merciful, both read Exodus 34:6-7 as God's own self-description, both deny that sin is trivial, and both call the guilty to repent (Ezekiel 18:21-23 is common ground).

Where they differ. The question is whether repentance is itself a sufficient answer to P1.

• The rabbinic answer. The collision in P3 is real but held within God, whose two measures work together with mercy given priority. Repentance is what justice asks of the guilty; the unrepentant are not cleared. A penalty borne by another is unnecessary, and many Jewish thinkers find it objectionable in principle, citing Ezekiel 18:20. God is the wronged party in sin against him and may forgive what is owed to him, as he forgave Nineveh on its repentance (Jonah 3:10).
• The Christian reply. First, repentance changes the person and the future, but on P1 it does not by itself answer the past wrong: a human judge who freed a repentant murderer with no sentence would still be judged to have waived justice. Second, the rabbinic system itself grants part of this, because for the gravest sins it requires something beyond repentance, Yom Kippur, suffering or death; the Christian argument reads that as the moral intuition of P1 asking for a bearer. Third, the Torah's own provision was blood on the altar (Leviticus 17:11), and the rabbinic sources present the post-Temple provision as a substitution for it; see Blood Atonement Not Required Objection Defeater.
• The rabbinic counter-reply. The human-judge analogy limps, because a judge administers a law that protects third parties, while God forgives sin against himself. Suffering in rabbinic thought refines the sinner rather than paying a creditor. And the prophets repeatedly promise forgiveness on repentance without mention of a substitute.

Calibration. This is a genuine dispute between two readings of shared Scriptures, not a case of one side ignoring a datum. The argument's case against rabbinic Judaism is weaker than its case against naturalism or impersonal karma, because both faiths honour P2 in full and both take P1 seriously. The disagreement is over what P1 requires: a turning of the guilty, or a penalty borne. A reader who accepts the rabbinic reading of Exodus 34:7 will rate the rabbinic row higher than the ledger does.

Abductive strand

Convergence

The comparative study of religions, the codex's own comparison pages, and Christian theology reach P5's descriptions. The descriptions of rivals are offered as fair summaries; their adherents' best replies are noted in the table.

Objections and rebuttals

1. "The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father (Ezekiel 18:20): no one can die for another." Rebuttal. Ezekiel forbids punishing an unwilling third party for another's sin. The atonement is God himself, freely, bearing what the guilty owe. See No One Can Die For Another Objection Defeater.
2. "Isn't God punishing an innocent person? That's unjust." Rebuttal. Only if the Son were a third party. On the Trinitarian doctrine the one who pays is the Judge himself. That is why the deity of Christ is load-bearing; see The Ought-Owe Argument and Trinity.
3. "Islam has abundant mercy; why is that worse?" Rebuttal. It is not worse in mercy. The question is only whether guilt is answered or set aside, and on that the two faiths differ by design.
4. "Judaism already keeps both. Justice and mercy are God's two measures, and repentance atones." Rebuttal. Granted that rabbinic Judaism keeps both in view and takes sin seriously, as the subsection above shows. The disagreement is narrower: whether a turning of the guilty is a full answer to guilt already incurred. The Christian argument notes that the rabbinic gradings themselves ask for more than repentance in the gravest cases, and holds that P1 asks for a penalty borne. A Jewish reader will contest that reading of P1, and the dispute is a fair one.

The knot

The strands are independent: laboratory psychology on punishment (Carlsmith and colleagues), clinical research on forgiveness (Wade and colleagues), social psychology (Exline and colleagues), analytic philosophy of law (Smart, Murphy, Hampton), medieval theology (Anselm), rabbinic literature (Sifre, Genesis Rabbah, the Mishnah and Talmud, Maimonides), and comparative religion. The rabbinic sources are a witness to P1, P2 and P3 from outside Christianity: they name the same two measures and feel the same tension. One overlap is counted once: Worthington is an author in both the meta-analysis and the injustice-gap paper. P1 overlaps The Cold Case Argument and the Argument from Justice, and P2 overlaps the Argument from Forgiveness; this page's distinct datum is their conjunction and collision.

The ledger

Prior-agnostic and comparative: the ledger asks how well each worldview honours each datum. The ratings are reasoned judgments from the sections above.

Net. On the two data separately, several worldviews do well: karma on justice, Islam and rabbinic Judaism on mercy. On their conjunction, rabbinic Judaism is the strongest rival, because it holds both as measures in God and takes guilt seriously. The Christian account is the only one surveyed that claims to keep both demands at full strength, with justice satisfied rather than tempered. The argument is as strong as P1 is understood as a demand for a penalty borne, not only for repentance, and that is exactly the point a rabbinic reader disputes.

The defeater gate

Incoherence of penal substitution. The strongest objection is that the Christian solution does not keep justice at all; it violates it twice. Punishment is essentially directed at the guilty, so "punishing" an innocent substitute is not punishment, and transferring guilt is incoherent. The objection has a long history, from the sixteenth-century Socinian critics of satisfaction theory to contemporary philosophers of religion, and Murphy's own scepticism about forgiveness supplies a secular version: a moral order that lets the guilty go because someone else suffered has not taken the guilty seriously.

The reply has three steps.

1. The substitute is not a third party. The objection assumes God punishes someone other than himself. On the Christian doctrine, the Son is God, so the Judge bears the penalty of his own law. This is not a stranger made to pay; it is the creditor absorbing the debt. See Christ is God.
2. Union, not transfer. The New Testament presents the believer as united to Christ ("we might become the righteousness of God in him," 2 Corinthians 5:21), so that the guilty are not simply let go; their guilt is dealt with in the one they are joined to. Theologians who defend satisfaction differ on the model, penal, satisfaction or participatory, but all deny a bare transfer between strangers.
3. The alternative costs more. If no satisfaction is needed, P1 is weakened to a preference God may waive. If satisfaction is needed but the guilty must pay it, P2 is lost. The objector must choose which datum to give up.

What the gate concedes: the doctrine is mysterious, and its models are debated within Christianity. The argument claims only that it is the one account surveyed that is designed to honour both data, and that the objection does not show it fails.

Concessions

• Grant: Islam teaches abundant mercy. Now collect: by sovereign pardon, which on its own terms needs no satisfaction, so P1 is honoured as God's prerogative, not as a demand.
• Grant: rabbinic Judaism holds justice and mercy together, grades atonement by the gravity of sin, and refuses atonement for a wrong against a neighbour until the neighbour is appeased. Now collect: its own gradings ask for something beyond repentance in the gravest cases, Yom Kippur, suffering or death, which is the intuition P1 states. The question between the faiths is not whether guilt must be answered, but how, and by whom.
• Grant: karma is a serious account of moral causation. Now collect: in its impersonal form it has no one who forgives, so P2 has no object.
• Grant: forgiveness is good for mental health. Now collect: the guilty person still wants to be forgiven by someone with standing, which no therapy supplies.

Cheatsheet

The 30-second version (read aloud). We want two things. When a child is hurt, we want justice: a judge who lets it slide has done wrong. When we have done wrong, we want mercy: real forgiveness, not a shrug. But mercy means not giving what justice demands. Naturalism says neither is real. Karma keeps justice and has no one to forgive. Islam keeps mercy by sovereign pardon. Judaism keeps both as God's two measures and says repentance is the answer. Christianity says the Judge took the penalty himself, so he can be just and still forgive. That is the only answer I know that keeps both.

Fast facts:

1. Carlsmith, Darley and Robinson (JPSP, 2002): people punish by desert, not deterrence.
2. Wade et al. (JCCP, 2014): forgiveness interventions increase forgiveness and are linked to reduced depression and anxiety.
3. Murphy (1988): if mercy departs from justice, it seems unjust; if it does not, it is not mercy.
4. Anselm (1098): to remit sin without satisfaction leaves justice unrepaired.
5. Romans 3:26: "that he might himself be just, and the justifier of him that hath faith in Jesus."

The closing line. Every other answer keeps one scale and breaks the other; the cross is where both scales were kept.

Cross-examination

Round 1, Justice

• Q: If a judge freed a guilty murderer out of kindness, would he have done wrong?
• If they say yes: then justice cannot simply be waived.
• If they say no: then ask whether they would say so to the victim's family.

Round 2, Mercy

• Q: Is it ever good to forgive someone who really deserves punishment?
• If they say yes: then you hold both data. How does your worldview keep both?

Round 3, The resolution

• Q: Can God forgive sin simply by deciding to?
• If they say yes: then guilt is a debt God may simply ignore, and the judge in Round 1 was only imitating God.
• If they say no: then the debt must be paid. By whom?

Dodge table

Live-cite kit

Scripture (ASV):

• Exodus 34:6-7: Jehovah, Jehovah, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abundant in lovingkindness and truth; keeping lovingkindness for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin; and that will by no means clear the guilty (Exodus 34:6-7, ASV)
• Psalm 85:10: Mercy and truth are met together; Righteousness and peace have kissed each other (Psalm 85:10, ASV)
• Isaiah 53:5-6: But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed ... and Jehovah hath laid on him the iniquity of us all (Isaiah 53:5-6, ASV)
• Romans 3:25-26: whom God set forth to be a propitiation, through faith, in his blood, to show his righteousness ... that he might himself be just, and the justifier of him that hath faith in Jesus (Romans 3:25-26, ASV)
• 2 Corinthians 5:21: Him who knew no sin he made to be sin on our behalf; that we might become the righteousness of God in him (2 Corinthians 5:21, ASV)

Scholarly:

• Anselm, Cur Deus Homo (1098): why God became man to make satisfaction.
• Jeffrie Murphy and Jean Hampton, Forgiveness and Mercy (Cambridge, 1988).
• Carlsmith, Darley and Robinson, JPSP 83 (2002).
• Wade, Hoyt, Kidwell and Worthington, JCCP 82 (2014).

Aphorism: "Mercy without justice is a shrug. Justice without mercy is a sentence. The cross is both."

Connection to Scripture

• Exodus 34:6-7, God's self-description holds both: "forgiving iniquity" and "will by no means clear the guilty." The tension is in God's own name.
• Proverbs 17:15, justifying the wicked is an abomination, which is why Romans 4:5 is startling.
• Romans 3:21-26, the resolution: in the Greek of verse 26 God is dikaion (just) and dikaiounta (justifying), an adjective and a participle from the same root, held together by one kai. See dikaios, dikaioō and hilastērion.
• Isaiah 53:5-6, the Servant bears the iniquity of all, centuries before the cross.
• 2 Corinthians 5:21, the exchange: our sin to him, his righteousness to us.
• James 2:13, "mercy glorieth against judgment."

Scholarship

Published academic works this page draws on, each matched to a publisher, index or library catalog record.

• Kevin M. Carlsmith, John M. Darley and Paul H. Robinson, "Why do we punish? Deterrence and just deserts as motives for punishment," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 83 (2002). doi:10.1037/0022-3514.83.2.284 PubMed 12150228
• Robert D. Enright, Forgiveness Is a Choice (2001). Open Library
• Jeffrie G. Murphy and Jean Hampton, Forgiveness and Mercy (Cambridge University Press, 1988). doi:10.1017/cbo9780511625121
• Jeffrie G. Murphy, "Mercy and legal justice," Forgiveness and Mercy (1988). doi:10.1017/cbo9780511625121.007

See also

• Ris3n Arguments, the hub of ris3n's original arguments
• Arguments, the master index
• The Ought-Owe Argument, the grammar of debt and why the one who pays must be God
• Argument from Twin Asymmetries, forgiveness running backwards at the cross
• Argument from Forgiveness, the felt need for forgiveness
• Biblical Forgiveness, the doctrine in practice
• Atonement and Penal Substitutionary Atonement, the models
• Necessity of the Incarnation, Anselm's argument
• Justification by Faith, how the guilty are declared righteous
• Karma, Islam vs the Christian God, Hinduism vs the Christian God and Buddhism vs the Christian God, the comparisons
• The Jewish Defense, Rabbinic Judaism vs the Christian God and Blood Atonement Not Required Objection Defeater, the rabbinic account of repentance and atonement and the Christian reply
• Judaism and Talmud, the tradition and its sources
• World Religions Compared by Their Ultimate Ending, the wider survey
• The Cold Case Argument and The Scales Argument, justice owed and justice measured
• Cumulative Case for Christian Theism, where this argument contributes