Igor Primoratz's Categotiation Argument

In the argument for abolishing or retention of the death penalty, Igor Primoratz took the Pro-retributivism stand for the retention of the death penalty. In Primoratz’s “A Life for A Life,” he argues against the abolitionists utilitarianism stand on the issue of the death penalty. Primoratz argues on the premises that- (a) “Punishment is morally Justified insofar as it is meted out as retribution for offense committed” (Primoratz 356.) (b) Death is the only proportional punishment for murder; (c) Death is the only effective deterrence measure for murder. In response to Primoratz choice to use Kant’s Retributivism argument as the basis for his pro-retention argument for the death penalty, similarly Kant’s Categorical Imperative will be used as a measuring stick to validate or refute Primoratz’s argument for the retention of the death penalty. On the premise that punishment is justified so long as it meted out as retribution for the offense committed; asserting that punishment of death for murderers is morally justified simply because of the degree of the crime and requires a vengeful punishment. Could this premise be applied to other crimes such as rape, arson, or burglary?

The les talionis approach to capital punishment should not be limited only murder just because “the uniqueness of the crime has to do with the uniqueness of the value which has been deliberately destroyed” (Primoratz 357.) To approach one crime and punishment with a retributive mindset clearly fails Kant’s decree that “an action is permissible if the maxim can be universalized” (Vaughn 122.) If the punishment for murder is death, then all other punishment for any other crime should resemble the