WHY THERE IS DOUBLE MORAL STANDARD IN NATURE WHERE KILLING IS THE WAY TO SURVIVE IN ANIMAL WORLD, WHILE?

Are you asking why it's OK for animals to kill each other in the wild, but it's not OK for humans to kill each other in civilization?

If so, this is what I believe:

a) Man is the most highly advanced animal in terms of understanding right and wrong, forming democracies, using verbal language, etc. We set up rules so that people that do wrong can be punished. I'm sure in some third world places, some killings are justified--and not all are humane. It really all depends on the majority of people.

b) Animals kill each other in the wild for food. It's literally dog-eat-dog in the animal kingdom. You kill so that either you get food or you yourself don't become food. Here in civilized society, we don't kill people for food. People kill for vengeance or out of hatred. Totally different.

We shouldn't consider it a "double moral standard". I think we should consider to hold ourselves on high ground and know that killing is never really the right choice--but again, it's whom you ask.

Killing members of your own kind is NOT the way to survive in the animal world when dealing with animals who are social species like apes, wolves, geese, ants, .etc. Much like with human society, the way to survive in packs of social species is to suck up, show dominance, manipulate, and contribute.

It hardly seems fair but our society makes exceptions for convicted murderers, wars, euthanasia /hospice, and abortionists.

People who are mild mannered Clark Kent types simply don't live as long as manly men who don't take no for an answer. Passive people die more often from cancer than assertive people.