No, just that they're not naturally good. I don't see just good or bad, but in between, neutral.
They're definitely naturally warlike, because war arose from nature. That doesn't make them bad, it just means that they saw some reason to fight and kill each other.
What is your definition of "nature," out of curiosity, and do you believe that the taking of innocent/non-violent life is always wrong?
I regard nature as the phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and products of the earth, as opposed to humans or human creations.
Since war occurs among non-human species, it's natural by my definition.
And no, the taking of innocent lives is not wrong to me if it saves vastly more innocent lives than it costs.
I'm sure you'll be the first to volunteer when the time comes, then, to sacrifice your life for a hypothetical "greater good."
Wait a minute. No, you won't. You'll vote for the others to go first. Pathetic.
Some people do answer the call. Some people don't have the option.
I don't see how any of that goes against my utilitarian argument that generally a million lives is worth more than one. It's a no-brainer, really.
It just demonstrates a lack of an understanding of ethics. Like I said, in that case, please sacrifice yourself first.
This is the same inane excuse used to "justify" drone bombing children in the Middle East.
If you think about it for a second, you'll see it's a dead end. Nothing, not even hypothetical situations, ever justify the taking of innocent life.
Some situations do justify taking innocent lives.
If I spend one dollar to save one million dollars, then I have saved $999,999.
If I kill one person to save one million, then I have saved 999,999 lives. That's a good thing!
There you go. My point exactly. Lives to you are comparable to things, and you judge in an exclusively quantitative, utilitarian manner, like most violent collectivists.