Legal naturalists would generally argue that having a law against murder is what kind of principle?

Legal naturalists believe that certain moral principles are inherent and universally applicable to all societies, based on the notion of natural law. This perspective suggests that laws, such as those prohibiting murder, stem from universal moral truths that reflect human rights and ethical standards.

The rationale behind classifying the principle against murder as a universally accepted principle is that moral outrage against taking an innocent life transcends cultural and societal boundaries. While individual societies may have different legal systems and cultural practices, the consensus against murder aligns with fundamental human rights recognized globally.

In contrast, an optional principle would imply that adherence to the law is not necessary; a universally accepted principle affirms the necessity of respecting human life. A variable principle suggests that the understanding or application of the law can change significantly depending on context, which does not hold true for the prohibition of murder. Cultural principles would indicate that the understanding of laws is solely dependent on specific cultural contexts, which again contradicts the overarching moral agreement on the wrongness of murder across diverse societies.