In debates over sovereign debt, sometimes debtors argue debts should be forgiven because the debtors were very bad, and they sometimes argue that debts should be forgiven because the debtors were very good. The first of these situations has generated a tsunami of academic commentary over the last century. The second class of arguments has hitherto been completely absent from the scholarly literature. The first situation gives rise to the so-called odious debt doctrine. This article explores the possibility of a mirror opposite, virtuous debt doctrine. There are historical precedents for virtuous debt arguments, most notably in the debates over inter-allied debts after World War I. Drawing on basic principles of private law, this article argues that virtuous debt can be thought of as involving the interaction of two distinct kinds of claims. The first is a contractual claim by the creditor against the debtor. The second is a restitutionary or unjust enrichment claim by the debtor against the creditor. […]