I have no statistics, but if I look at the number of people who actually commit violent acts (the number who kill would appear to be exceptionally smaller even among the military) compared to the over all population, I could and would conclude (inherent or not) that human beings are decidedly more non-violent.
Has anyone said people are generally more violent than non-violent? I thought the point was essentially that we're equally capable of both.
Didn't this topic come about initially by discussing a view that acts of other-regarding behavior are superior in some ways to selfish behavior? And that the subject shifted to the nature of mankind with regards to violence and non-violence? I thought the argument William was making was that violence (in this case exemplified by war) isn't natural to people. I thought Eric was saying it is natural because it happens all the time (even if to a significantly lesser degree on the whole) and that believing ourselves to be inherently non-violent is dangerous because it opens the door to all sorts of strange justifications for further violence.
So I thought the issue was whether or not killing comes naturally to folks. I'm fairly sure most anthropologists would argue aggression, and thus it various expressions, are natural to anything living.