The definition is vague, not wrong. The fact that there are multiple (overlapping yet non-overarching) definitions for "murder" attests to the complexity of the term. "Killing with premeditated malice" certainly covers a significant subset of murder, a subset that is defined independently of a code of laws. (If I say "I own a cow," then you wouldn't say "You're wrong, you own a white cow!")
Yes, but a subset can only exist within the set: if the set, "murder" needs law, then a subset prior to the law can not exist. I can not say "wrong, you own a white cow!", if there i no such thing as a cow.
Language, or whatever "makes" language. The bulk of the dictionary's definitions for "justice" are defined independently of law, e.g., "The principle of moral rightness; equity."
But are any of those definitions independent of soceity, norms, customs, the precursors of law? The theory of justice, even under that defiinition, can not exist outside of society and human groups.
But Berz still has a problem, since what is "justifiable" can change if you change what is "justice" fr a given group. till makes "murder" dependent on human convention, be it law, or custom and norm.
Comment