I see no evidence, as I said, of any actual "change" in these matters, no "evolution" away from it as Teilhard de Chardin posited.
My view is that there will be no change in such matters as long as men are mortal. The original sin, the Id, whatever you call it, is rooted in the consciousness we have of our own frailty. Philosophy will give you everything and its opposite, from complete determinism (Mektub / Fatum) to total freedom of choice (existentialism). The only one absolute certainty every man, educated or not, carries inside him is this : he will die.
And Life (capital L), whether you see it as god-given or a mere biochemical random event, simply refuses to accept the notion of its own end. It is the safeguard Life has ingrained in all living creatures to ascertain it will go on. Any living thing will strive to survive, at any cost. Fish will develop legs and lungs and get out of the water. An animal cornered will flee, or fight. Even plants, circumstances helping, will adapt to drought or frost. Life (the instinct of survival) is rooted in the very core of our psyche.
So we adapt. The cold kills us, we invent fire. Hunger ? Agriculture. Disease ? Medicine. Man, originally a prey to everything, turns into a predator. We make weapons and kill the bear.
Then we realize that we'd rather kill (other men) than die, and that our fellow humans think alike. So the struggle for Power begins - for land, for money, for women, for influence, for knowledge, you name it. Hierarchies emerge. The higher we rise in the human hierarchy, the safer we feel. The man we have vanquished or submitted is no longer a threat. Money buys comfort and health, ie survival. Conversely, men can't bear feeling inferior, subjected. It implies vulnerability, just like disease or hunger. Power protects. Power is Life.
Problem is : in that endless competition, an eye for an eye leaves everybody blind. Inner strife weakens the group, in its struggle against other groups. So Moses comes down from the mountain with the ten commandments. In our quest for survival, we invent moral rules, laws, etc... We capture the "fire" (to plagiarize from Gaston Bachelard) and hold it under check in the stove.
But moral rules suffer two limitations : Joseph Conrad, in his novels, described them as a layer of thin varnish over unfathomable depths of millenia-old brutish violence. They are artificial constructs, somehow. Imposed from outside, most of the time. People don't spontaneously adhere to such notions. The rational mind is younger than instincts. Even such basic rules as the highway code have to be enforced by a police force. The fire can be checked, but nurtures dreams of escape. Besides, rules are based on a contract : I play by the rules to ensure you'll play by the rules. What if someone stops playing fair? Should we go on complying, or feel freed from duty? One guy tried to hold on and stick to his own humanistic ideals despite violent opposition : he ended up nailed to a cross.
A solution? I can see only one : education, always more education. We need to explain the genesis of rules, the chaos they are meant to pull us out of. And incite students to launch into some soul-searching, so they become aware of the beast within. But we should do so without brainwashing youngsters into blind submission. Sometimes violence is the only dignified option, when the alternatives are submission, flight, or death. "Let a man never stir on his road a step without his weapons of war; for unsure is the knowing when need shall arise of a spear on the way without." (Havamal, 38)