Final answer:
Primoratz's justification of the death penalty is deontological, emphasizing rules or duties over consequences, aligning with traditional Kantian duty where morality is determined by adherence to rules rather than outcomes.
Step-by-step explanation:
Primoratz's justification of the death penalty appears to be a deontological (backward-looking) justification rather than a consequentialist (forward-looking) one. This is because deontological theories of ethics emphasize that the morality of an action is based on whether it adheres to a set of rules or duties, regardless of the consequences of the action. In deontological systems, actions are inherently right or wrong, and the moral assessment of an action does not consider its outcomes. Given the information provided about deontological ethics being associated with intrinsic notions of right and wrong that do not weigh consequences, it follows that Primoratz's rationale would focus on the intrinsic rightness of issuing the death penalty based on objective principles or duties rather than the consequences that the punishment might bring about. This is consistent with traditional Kantian duty which would suggest an action, such as capital punishment, could be justified on the grounds that it is a fulfillment of duty, rather than the potential deterrent or preventative effects it might have.