Eye for an eye doesn't exist in nature.
BUT, an eye for an eye that allows for mistakes does exist in nature. The bat, specifically, per Robert Sapolsky's research.
However, I call 'eye for an eye' a false equivalence to my question about the scenario given in Trial by Jury.
Men don't look to beasts for ethical standards. We are rational, they are not. We are their masters--the lords and undershepherds of creation.
I will suggest a second time to read Spooner on this question.
Let me know when you have domesticated the Lion.
Ever been to a zoo?
Or a circus?
We are here to guide nature, not to be guided by it.
Humans are the greatest predator on this planet, and domestication is a form of predation. The legal system is a form of domestication. Throw a random selection of domesticated lions, cats, and humans in the wild. Then check the survival rate. Who is more domesticated? You wouldn't be able to sit in your comfortable chair behind the keyboard if some undomesticated killer didn't come before you, and continue to have have the capacity to exert power over other predators.
