Culture and Respect

[eyemixer]

Thanks for the answer to the first question, but you only partially quoted my second question and failed to answer it. I would appreciate an answer.

I answered that question. I said within this context, because there is no third party involved, it involves two parties that struggle for supremacy, where might makes right.
If there was a third party involved that would restrict the might of the two parties, I'd say that the right lays with the third party.
In your scenario, there is a third party, which is the hitman, and the fourth party, which is law enforcement.
Given the fact that the hit you have paid for is successful does not change this.

I use death as an example as it tends to be a non-reversible condition. I also could care less about how much 'might' I have by causing such an action, so arguing how that action does not grant me 'might' seems a bit pointless.

You cannot cause might, you either have it or not.
You might have personal reasons to wish death upon me, but law states that you do not reserve the right to cause death upon me, either directly. Who is more powerful, who is more mighty?
Who reserves to call what is right and what is not? Obviously, it is not you, but the law.

So what you seem to be saying is that stealing your food (or killing you, or any application of force against your will) is the 'right' thing to do if I can do it. So if I was the one to 'pull the trigger' then killing you would be the right thing to do?

It seems your ONLY definition of 'right' is what is compelled by the more powerful, and NO OTHER definition of 'right' is correct. Am I characterizing your position correctly?

Well, even if you think its not, who is going to tell me otherwise after I take your bread?
I think I am right, I eliminated you and have all the bread for myself.
Unless there is a third party involved, who might not even be another person, but say, for example, a mere concept of sharing, that we have been told that is right by those who have taught us, we have accepted the "right" of a third party.
Their might is not in the form of violence or threats of violence.

And yes, that is correct. However, that might may not always be related to violence. Its just that within the context of conquest it is done as such.

You just answered my first question twice, not the second. You made two contradictory statements.

The first:

Well, you mean that there is a third party, the state, that enacts these laws. The state has the right to do this via the might of punishment. And it reserves this right by its might

The Second:

I think that you don't really understand the concept of might. In truth, the real might in your scenario lies with the man who performs the hit, as it is him who pulls the trigger, i.e. holds life and death in his hand.

Either the state does have power, or it does not. Your second statement invalidates the first, as it is NOT the state, but the single individual carrying out the act who has the 'might' as you describe it. My argument with ordering a hit matches with your first definition of might (the state taking action) but you dismiss it with your second (only the hand on the trigger has might). This is what I am asking you for an answer about. Which of these statements do you hold to be true as they are contradictory? If I sucessfully order a hit, then by definition no other party was able to withhold my 'might'

As to

You cannot cause might, you either have it or not.

that is patently false. Acquisition of a firearm gives me more 'might' and by your definition more 'right'. Studying the martial arts and sculpting a physique capable of applying those arts in a destructive manner is another acquisition of 'might' in terms of my ability to dominate the actions of another through force. And what has the law to do with it? If the law cannot prevent me from killing someone, the law has less 'might' than I do, but if I get caught and then executed, now the law has more 'might' than I do.

Do you disagree with the commonly accepted meaning of 'right' when used as an adjective as used in the English language?

1.
morally good, justified, or acceptable.
"I hope we're doing the right thing"
synonyms: just, fair, proper, good, upright, righteous, virtuous, moral, ethical, honorable, honest; More
lawful, legal
"it wouldn't be right to do that"
antonyms: wrong, unjust
2.
true or correct as a fact.
"I'm not sure I know the right answer"
synonyms: correct, accurate, exact, precise; More

And yes, I understand you can agree with this and still hold your position, I don't want to assume what's in your head