well, you yourself fail to realize that if the right doesn't exist until the good does, then it exists after the good, and they don't become the same. you miss the point, which is simply that the good is not prior to the right. the right being prior to the good is just that the good is not prior to the right. So you'd fail to elucidate this, when you can't go beyond saying that "one is just the other" when you could still represent both as either, since even though you think it does, it still doesn't amount to the fact that they are different. And yet the fact that the right is prior to the good, is not the good, definitely doesn't mean just that "there is no right before the good". According to you, the priority of the right doesn't contradict the existence of the good - so you wouldn't be able to establish that there is no right before the good, since the good only exists when the right does. You probably won't understand this the first time around, but the point is that the existence of the right, when the good exists, definitely means that the right isn't nonexistent before the good exists. But as soon as you say that 'just one is the other', you have contradicted the principle that one of them, prior to the other, exists.