In this contribution we investigate the conceptual coherence of penal substitution and its moral validity. After assessing two opposing modern contributions (Stevin Porter and Mark Murphy), we turn to Reformed and medieval scholasticism (Owen, Van Mastricht, and Duns Scotus). 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 (pace Murphy).

中文翻译：

---

模棱两可的刑罚替代的连贯性：现代和学术的声音

在这个贡献中，我们研究了刑罚替代的概念一致性及其道德有效性。在评估了两个对立的现代贡献（Stevin Porter 和 Mark Murphy）之后，我们转向改革宗和中世纪经院哲学（Owen、Van Mastricht 和 Duns Scotus）。这种学术上的策略进一步阐明了所讨论的分析问题。继欧文和司各特对内疚及其惩罚的关系分析的使用之后，我们认为惩罚替代在概念上和道德上是一致的，尽管与普通惩罚不同。没有替代的情况是个人应得的；在此我们跟随墨菲。然而，这留下了代表应得的概念可能性（佩斯墨菲）。