Perhpas my arguments appear bizarre because, as I've said, we are talking two different questions. You keep addressing the issue of actions taken on behalf of society as a whole. I'm speaking of actions taken by an individual member of society against another individual member of the society.
I've given you specific examples of why I see the two as different. Ted Bundy, murdered? Martha Stewart, if fined, theft? Actions taken by the state are not the same as actions taken by individual members.
We can disucss your issues, but, for me, only after we have addressed the notions I'm talking about becasue I'll just keep referring back to them anyway.
So, if you'd care to address this issue, please do so. Suppose you and I are neighbors and one day I get it into my head to go over to your home and slit your throat. My action would not have been tolerated in ancient Egypt, or Palestine, or feudal Japan, or China. So, do you argue that my action is simply relative? That given different circumstances, different times, different beliefs, my action of murder would be tolerable?
It has never happened, and for good reason. It can't happen, and for good reason. Funny thing is, even in illegitimate segments of larger societies, my actions would not be tolerated. Even in the Mafia, individual members aren't allowed to capriciously, kill another member.
Suppose you are Pharaoh -- then it would have been tolerated.
You're dancing on the razor's edge with this one, trying very hard to avoid the fact that you're willing to excuse murders committed on behalf of a government. We need not get into Ted Bundy's execution: the execution of 6 million Jews by the government of Nazi Germany will suffice. Are you really going to tell us that what they did was OK? If so, why? If not, why not?