Wild animals in nature demonstrate this. We are not wild animals in nature. We are evolved beings with self-awareness, empathy, reason, and a concept of justice, living in a highly constructed environment. The two situations could not be more different. The only similarity is that we have historical wiring that remembers a time when we lived like animals, and had to have their reactions. Trying to validate your basest, most selfish instincts by saying basically, "Well, animals do it!", is childish, wilfully obtuse, and utterly lacking in intellectual rigor. There are no fair fights. Nature demonstrates this daily.
Except in circumstances of life threatening violence. Self preservation in the face of an overwhelmingly powerful opponent who has demonstrated the intent to end a life is neither base nor selfish. Retreating to animalistic violence when confronted by an unpleasant or upsetting circumstances that do not offer any direct physical threat is base. FYI I'm not happy with either option. I believe my position is the lesser of two evils because it preserves the life and wellness of the person who did not instigate violence. If you can present the case that the alternative is somehow more palatable, by all means, I am listening. I wish that we were developed and moral enough at this point in history to make interpersonal violence a non issue. We are not. Maybe we will get there someday.The two situations could not be more different
basest, most selfish instincts
This is like the mathematician's joke, that begins, "Assuming an infinite plane..." The man did not just decide to kill a woman motorcyclist for the heck of it, like the guy that killed my friend Yancy. He was triggered by something. Maybe she cut him off. Whatever. He felt wronged, so he attacked. Was she the "instigator" in his mind? I assume so, because he felt a compelling need to confront her. She headbutted him with her helmet on. Etc... I believe my position is the lesser of two evils because it preserves the life and wellness of the person who did not instigate violence.
This is where the line is. Feeling wronged is not sufficient cause for violence of any variety. Do I wish that we had sufficient technology that he would be incapable of harming your friend regardless of his intent and action without any grievous harm coming to him? Of course I do, but that's not the situation we find ourselves in. I agree with you on what 'should' be. There should be some way for a physically disadvantaged person to defend themselves in a life or death struggle with a physically advantaged opponent without killing them, but gives attacked party sufficient power to end the confrontation. We aren't there yet. We don't have a tool or weapon like that yet, and until we do, I don't see an alternative way to make things at all close to 'fair' in life or death confrontations like this one.He felt wronged, so he attacked.