Primoratz's Arguments On The Death Penalty

Primoratz argues that the death penalty is the only punishment proportional to the offense of murder because, while he believes that human life is invaluable, he also believes that anyone who takes a human life forfeits his or her right to life and should therefore be punished in a way that is equivalent to their crime. He also says that there is no other punishment besides the death penalty that is harsh enough to be fairly imposed upon the murderer. While there are other punishments that would deprive a murderer of certain value, none would be equivalent to the value that a murderer took from their victim. Primoratz has formed a compelling argument, but I cannot completely agree with him. It does seem like the obvious answer to say that a person who has committed a crime deserves to be deprived of the same value that he has deprived of another person. …show more content…
We do not do exactly to thieves or kidnappers as they have done to others, so why should we murder a murderer? I think that if we were to apply this principle in the case of murderers, we would have to apply it to all crimes. When thinking about it that way, it sounds very implausible. I also believe that human life is invaluable. However, I don’t agree that a murderer forfeits his right to life entirely when he murders another person because I do not believe such a thing to be possible. Everyone has a right to life regardless of their actions, and by encouraging the use of the death penalty, we are encouraging people to put a value on human life based on one's actions

Show More

Related Documents: Primoratz's Arguments On The Death Penalty

Philosophy Test Notes Essay