Adam:
1) Humans are social, co-operative animals. We can achieve more and greater things together than as individuals. The International Space Station for example. Or the WHO wiping out smallpox. This is not any kind of fallacy.
What is your point?
2) If you act on your urges to take, hurt, et cetera, then it is perfectly reasonable to expect other to do the same to you. But no doubt you don't want that to happen. Neither do they. This is not any kind of fallacy.
Yes, it is an argument from adverse consequences, and false to boot.
Justine leads an outstanding life. Pious, she is raped by monks. Charitable, she is robbed by a fraud. Compassionate, she is raped and robbed by the man whose life she saves. She refuses to participate in theft and is framed for the crime. She tries to save the life of a young woman and is branded as a thief, narrowly escaping with her life.
Fiction?
Joseph Mengle died swimming in the Pacific.
Ivan the Terrible died suddenly during a game of chess.
Torquemada died a natural death at an old age.
Shall I go on? All these people died peaceful deaths after luxurious lives in which they behaved in the most abominable fashion. Were they hurt? No. Was Justine? Yes.
The conclusion is obvious. Virtue and humanity is not rewarded, it is punished.
3) We currently need police forces because people don't control their impulses and base urges. Police forces exist. This is not any kind of fallacy.
Again, I fail to see your point.
4) People allowing emotions to guide their actions creates murder, rape, war, hysteria, religion, and many other crimes against humanity. These could be avoided, for the benefit of all, if people simply thought about their actions first, allowing rational thought to guide their actions. This requires control. It's really very simple: less trouble and greater progress if there is control. I don't see how that very simple concept is a fallacy.
You've yet to show how it benefits me or Torquemada to refrain from committing "crimes against humanity", if we can get away with it.
Now let me put my question to you again:
Given that the powerful can get away with well nigh anything, why should the powerful control their "base urges"?