There is no afterlife.
Death is a lower state of being though there are states lower than death which is why there is such a thing as rational suicide.
Moreover, you have to explain why is it wrong to murder someone if that’s going to send him to hell.
There is no afterlife because if there is an afterlife it means you are Alive in some way therefore cannot be after life.
There is no Death it is not a lower state of being it does not exist. Dying or decaying is is a lower state of being.
Because such a thing is wrong to the person experiencing it.
You are playing a language game.
“Afterlife” means life after this known-to-us kind of life.
No such a thing, not because it’s by definition impossible, but because there is no evidence for it. It’s make believe.
You need to explain why is it wrong to send someone to hell simply because it is wrong to them.
Mithus got a point but it is not detailed.
Committing murder is wrong because it is an overriding universal absolute moral principle that ‘Thou Shalt Not Kill another human being’ period.
Murder is intrinsically, inherently and absolutely wrong because based on reason and logic, to make it a universal would mean the human species could possibly be extinct.
If there is no moral compass imbued into the minds of all humans [at least by reason] then all humans has the passport to kill another human. If that is the case, it would imply there are no restraints at all on any human being and the human species could possibly be extinct.
Therefore morally, Thou Shalt Not Kill another human being’ period. Killing another human being [including murder] is wrong on the level of moral conscience.
The above is the reason why killing [including murder] another human being is wrong.
Note ’ Thou Shalt Not Kill another human being’ period! is merely an overriding universal absolute moral principle based on reason to be held in the mind of the individual from the perspective of his morality and conscience. The individual[s] moral quotient need to be developed to meet this moral value.
The above moral principle can only be enforceable with one’s conscience but cannot be enforced by external parties on the principles of morality.
Where ‘Murder is wrong’ can be enforceable is on the level of ethics, i.e. practical and applied morality via Laws, Rules, etc. from politics, the legislature or psychological threats from religions and others.
Thus when some one kill another human being, s/he is subjected to two levels of judgment, i.e. one’s own conscience and external laws and threats. If one’s own moral quotient and conscience is not competent enough, then the killer will have to face the law or the illusory God or other threats of brute forces.
What definition of “wrong” are you using?
Excessive in what way? Yes, morality or ethics is a government and political social construction that has no real bearing outside of the realm of civilization or managed human society.
Inherent how?
The way human beings treat each other you could of fooled me by calling it inherent within everybody… 
Argument by a god or religion? Sorry, not buying it. Please try again.
As of yet nobody can formulate a coherent moral or ethical theory. Utter hilarity ensues.
The one and only definition. That which you do not want to do because it would of harm to you. That which you would consider to be a mistake if you did it.
It is excessive because you’re attacking morality in general instead of attacking only those moralities that are of no use to you but that are forced on you by external forces (e.g. government.)
Universal moralities, for example. Those moralities that are assumed to be of use to everyone but that are, in reality, at best useful to few at worst useful to noone.
Morality is simply a set of rules devised in order to faciliate social cooperation. If you want to cooperate with others, you must adopt some sort of morality. It does not matter how small your social unit is. Even the smallest social unit requires some sort of morality.
Thus, morality is not necessarily harmful and it is not something that is invented by, or used exclusively by, governments.
Why do you want to preserve human species in general? Don’t you think that you should only be caring about your own type and that which sustains it?
Why do you think we should be striving to minimize the risk of extinction by banning certain tools (e.g. murder) that can help us preserve our type?
Why do you think that we should be striving to minimize the risk of extinction by making everyone weak to the point of not being able to attack others but also to defend themselves from others?
I understand the need to handicap others but why do you want to handicap yourself?
As I stated before with Magnus it can be both a metaphor or a reality.
Has nothing to do with God or religion.
Death doesn’t exist and it is based on science and logic. If you shoot someone you are still alive. If you die you can never see death you just become something else.
You came to the earth from nothing, If you were born for no reason you shall be born again its that simple.
Hell could be consciousness residing in the center of the earth.
Unless you can prove the Great Absence then you cannot prove murder is not wrong.
The Great Absence by definition cannot exist. It is nothingness. By definition it cannot exist and it does not exist.
Therefore it is logical to believe in some sort of continuation of consciousness, some sort of an after-life, and not logical to believe in that which by definition does not exist.
It is wrong because of vibrations and energies. The vibrations and energies are structured in such a way to cause them pain. It is causing them endless suffering and pain.
Humans have an inherent moral ability regardless of government programming. Most humans feel guilty when they steal or murder someone. Not everyone has this but most do at least in civilized and feminized countries.
The problem with women is that they may not feel comfortable with murdering you, however they are perfectly content to let you rot in a small trailer all alone with noone to talk to. If the girl of your dreams rejects you, she doesn’t feel like she is in the wrong and she doesn’t care if you rot all alone. This is a crime worse than murder.
Although the human moral compass does have some functions it is incomplete and primitive. Humans seem to exhibit no empathy when it comes to locking organisms in cages or prolonged isolations. For example, if someone robs a bank humans think it is good to lock them up for 20 years. I think that is not moral but evil and more evil than robbing a bank.
There is a lot of hypocrisy and nonsense as well. For instance if someone kicks a dog for no reason they will have an angry mob after them trying to lock them up for animal abuse. Yet this same angry mob eats beef and steak everyday which is animals locked up cages and killed. And yet they have the nerve to call someone else an animal abuser. It’s hypocrisy and nonsense.
Another example is if I murder someone because they abuse their dog or something. Then the mob of idiots will turn on me and say how evil I am for murdering an abuser even though they themselves hate animal abusers and wanted me to murder the animal abuser in the first place.
That’s pretty vague. Is that all you got for a definition?
All forms of morality or ethics is enforced by some sort of government agency that created them.
On the individual level even it is enforced by individuals and their own sense of self worth onto others if they have the power or will in having the ability to do so.
In contrast I think negotiation and compromise is completely different from morality or ethics.
In terms of social cooperation morality and ethics aside negotiation along with compromise explains quite a bit of human social interaction without all the bullshit moral explanations or implications.
That’s what the word “wrong” means. Nothing vague about it.
You have a problem understanding what morality is.
When you die, your body does not cease to be, it merely changes its form.
You do, however, lose consciousness, in the similar way you do when you fall asleep.
Why is it hard for you to accept there is such a thing as loss of consciousness after death?
Because you think that loss of consciousness is nothing in the strict sense of the word? But it isn’t.
My point remains: you are merely playing a language game.
Why is it wrong to cause suffering and pain to others?