The non-authority expects to be able to reject the authority’s framework of respect and unilaterally decide on a new one.
The word “unilaterally” is tendentious here. How else can it be but “unilaterally”? It’s unilateral in either direction! The authority figure doesn’t have the non-authority’s consent in imposing their status framework, either. Both sides reject the other side’s implied status framework. The situation is fully symmetric.
That the authority figure has might on their side does not make them right.
You can call this “might” but in fact it’s attempting to change the default context (according to society) to lower the other person’s position.
The norm that one should not do anything that threatens the social status of those with high social status is, of course, highly beneficial to those with high social status, which gives them an incentive to promulgate said norm; and, having high social status, they have the ability to do just that. This fully suffices to explain why the norm exists.
The norm is you should give each person the treatment they deserve based on the social norms. A high status person treating a lower status person with less respect than is appropriate is exactly the same, except they can often get away with it due to might makes right.
Similarly, stealing from rich people is pretty similar to stealing from poor people, and the fact that rich people will be protected from thieves -with violence if necessary—is a feature not a bug.
That thieves don’t respect property rights does not make the rich protecting themselves with armed guards “might makes right”.
The word “unilaterally” is tendentious here. How else can it be but “unilaterally”? It’s unilateral in either direction! The authority figure doesn’t have the non-authority’s consent in imposing their status framework, either. Both sides reject the other side’s implied status framework. The situation is fully symmetric.
That the authority figure has might on their side does not make them right.
Higher status individual is socially decided, communication doesn’t happen in a vacuum.
If you wish to not treat them as higher status that’s leaving the social default.
You can call this “might” but in fact it’s attempting to change the default context (according to society) to lower the other person’s position.
The norm that one should not do anything that threatens the social status of those with high social status is, of course, highly beneficial to those with high social status, which gives them an incentive to promulgate said norm; and, having high social status, they have the ability to do just that. This fully suffices to explain why the norm exists.
That is pure, unadulterated “might makes right”.
The norm is you should give each person the treatment they deserve based on the social norms. A high status person treating a lower status person with less respect than is appropriate is exactly the same, except they can often get away with it due to might makes right.
Similarly, stealing from rich people is pretty similar to stealing from poor people, and the fact that rich people will be protected from thieves -with violence if necessary—is a feature not a bug.
That thieves don’t respect property rights does not make the rich protecting themselves with armed guards “might makes right”.