[0x8BADF00D]

Fundamentally, civilization is about control. The control is codified and accepted only because there is a certain amount of inhumanity that is required for it. I would argue that killing comes naturally to humans, and other acts of similar cruelty.

Morality and ethics are learned behaviors that are distilled from societal mores. If "thou shall not kill" or some equivalent in another religion didn't exist, for example, I'd argue killing would be natural in society, and nobody would question it. That is why certain tribal and indigenous peoples performed human sacrifices and had various rituals involving bloodsport. To those tribesmen, killing is not something abnormal within the tribe. Why would killing someone from another tribe matter to them?

[api]

Is/ought... I agree that humans are entirely capable of it. Is it the best thing for us to do?

My biggest problem with secular thought and especially the "pop atheist" variety is that it seems to often lead to is=ought. Regardless of the reality behind any form of theism, theistic thought never accepted that equality. It's always posited that there must be a "better than the way things are now." Some secularists dismiss that as wishful thinking and a coping mechanism, but if so why bother building or doing much of anything beyond the simple core of eat, shit, fight, and fuck?

[0x8BADF00D]

I agree but in order to have a “better society” governed by the “better angels of our nature”, you essentially need a bully. You need an entity that does all of the morally “bad” things.

[api]

I think you need an entity capable of doing the bad things, if only to stand up to others who do, but I'm not convinced there is some conservation of badness that prohibits the net amount of it from decreasing over time.