murder is wrong

Well the problem is that "murder" has a legal definition, whereas "wrong" has a moral definition. You are therefore asserting that all laws pertaining to murder are just. You might want to rethink that. But anyway. There must be no just murder, and all unjust killings must be murder. Is this even possible? Murder is certainly on our minds. A google search for "murder" gives 124 000 000 hits. Six or seven times as many as Britney Spears. Murder, as defined in common law countries, is the unlawful killing of another human being with intent (or malice aforethought), and generally this state of mind distinguishes murder from other forms of unlawful homicide. All jurisdictions, ancient and modern, consider it a most serious crime and therefore impose severe penalty on its commission. The word murder is related, in old English, to the French word mordre (bite) in reference to the heavy compensation one must pay for causing an unjust death Common law murder is defined as the: unlawful killing of another human being with a state of mind known as "malice aforethought". The first three elements are relatively straightforward; however, the concept of "malice aforethought" is a complex one that does not necessarily mean premeditation. The following states of mind are recognized as constituting the various forms of "malice aforethought": Intent to kill, Intent to inflict grievous bodily harm short of death, Reckless indifference to an unjustifiably high risk to human life (sometimes described as an "abandoned and malignant heart"), or Intent to commit a dangerous felony (the "felony-murder" doctrine). Under state of mind (i), intent to kill, the deadly weapon rule applies. Thus, if the defendant intentionally uses a deadly weapon or instrument against the victim, such use authorizes a permissive inference of intent to kill. An example of a deadly weapon or instrument is a gun, a knife, or even a car when intentionally used to strike the victim. Under state of mind (iii), an "abandoned and malignant heart", the killing must result from defendant's conduct involving a reckless indifference to human life and a conscious disregard of an unreasonable risk of death or serious bodily injury. An example of this is a 2007 law in California where an individual could be convicted of third-degree murder if he or she kills another person while operating a motor vehicle while being under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or controlled substances. Under state of mind (iv), the felony-murder doctrine, the felony committed must be an inherently dangerous felony, such as burglary, arson, rape, robbery or kidnapping. Importantly, the underlying felony cannot be a lesser included offense such as assault, otherwise all criminal homicides would be murder as all are felonies. --Wikipedia So if you kill two human beings it is not murder. Murder is the killing of one human being. I don't know, it's your statement. Examine issues of validity, scope and meaning of both the hytpothesis and your first argument, together with that of their individual words where appropriate. Some observations first. The scope of the statement is intentionally vague. "Murder" is a verb and someone must commit it within some context; moreover it is defined legally; "wrong" is defined morally. Does it refer to acts by yourself, or myself, or by an individual, or by groups of individuals, or by the police or military, or a part of a death penalty administration, or other? Who is being murdered? Is genocide murder? Does it refer to a single act, or to the occurrance of multiple acts, and if the latter, does it refer to all such acts, and if not, to exactly which ones? Does it refer to multiple killings? "Wrong" generally denotes a problem needing a solution. Do you have one in mind? Does it imply a duty to correct it, and if so is that the duty of the individual, or society, or both?