@oc16 As I just posted in another thread, the news report on the extraordinary, not the ordinary. Good is the expected, the ordinary most times (with exceptions). You'll occasionally read stories of a cop giving his shoes away to a hobo or something like that, but that is kinda extraordinary although in a positive way. Most extraordinary events are bad, it shocks us, grabs our attention. The news make money if they can grab our attention. The news is NOT a reflection of the ordinary and common, in other words not a fair representation of reality as a whole.
@brixlingo Ah, moral relativism. You're partly right in your first paragraph though, it is what it is, BUT what you mentioned has 2 sides and isn't so simple to unwrap. A lion eating a gazelle isn't a simple good or bad situation, it's good for the lion as it would die if it went vegan or didn't eat. It's bad for the gazelle as it dies. But there's at least one more level to this, if gazelle's wasn't eaten they'd reproduce as much as their available food and habitat would allow. This would eventually be bad for most gazelles and the rest of the ecosystem in their territory, so ultimately I'd say it's good that lions eat gazelles.
The rich getting richer is good for the rich people, the poor getting poorer is bad for the poor people. Again, 2 sided and definitely not a simple "good or bad". Distributing the resources somehow lets more people thrive, bad for the rich, good for the poor. You could argue whatever you want that rich people put in the work, but truth is that there's only so much you can do in a timeframe. I put in a damn fine piece of hard labor too, I'm just not getting as much as the heads above me, but without the likes of me they'd be sh!t out of luck. The rich take a large cut of someone else's hard work. Again, good for the few on top, not so good for us doing what actually makes them the money. So in the perspective of making life good for the greatest amount of people, that's bad. If you don't give a damn about a greater good, then you can basically make up whatever morality you'd like. Nothing really stopping you from doing that, although practicing some forms probably leads to negative consequences.
I also hate to be "that guy", but what is "natural"? From some perspectives literally everything could be called natural. One definition of natural is that it's not made or caused by humankind, but the word is commonly used way way more diffusely than that. The context which you're using the word suggests to me that you're actually talking about "normal" or "common", more specifically what's normal from your own subjective perspective. All the things you listed are things that you subjectively dislike, granted it's not common, but it occurs. If dumb sh!t like that wasn't a
part of human nature, then humans wouldn't do.
Reality is the way it is, it just is, as you said. We observe animals, what they do is natural even though some things they do are uncommon. Oddly we look differently at ourselves, some people do ignore progress, some do argue against gender and some do wish they were the opposite sex. We look at ourselves and all of a sudden some things that humans do is "unnatural". It occurs, it is the way it is, you may not like it and even that's natural, so is all of that really so unnatural?
Apart from your only reason for people doing bad things, I agree with the last paragraph. People having a good time in life greatly reduces the risk for them to harm others. Let's bring that one back to the rich vs. poor, the vast majority of people aren't as rich as the very rich. The poor getting poorer as the rich get richer will only go up to a point, it could ultimately end in massive destruction. Imagine we reach a tipping point, the point at which the vast majority of poor people just aren't having it anymore. They're not having a good time in life, they slave away only for the few rich people to enjoy the fruits of the poor people's labor. If the poor become poor enough they'll be sure to show the rich people where the true power lies.
What realistically happens is that most rich people are smart enough to give a raise. Not so much that it affects themselves noticably, but enough to calm the masses. The sense of unfairness doesn't go away, it's just held back by a little bit of hope which eventually runs out and they play the same trick over again. In other words the rich knows that the people below them collectively holds the real power. The poor can only become poorer up to a point before sh!t hits the fan. The ideal way to prevent such evil is to divide resources more fairly, but most rich people tend to be biased towards themselves choose the minimal way, because that works.
This response got a lot longer than I thought it would, good job if you made it through.