“that certain activities impacted the human condition in negative ways”
Here is the gap in your logic: the introduction of the notion of “the human condition.”
Why would the animal-man, under the analysis you describe, change his concern from being focused on his own survival and comfort to that of “the human condition” generally?
The answer is he wouldn’t.
Furthermore, there is an unstated and unjustified premise in your reference to “the human condition” and the “improvement” of the human condition, namely that there could be a common understanding of what “improving the human condition” means.
There isn’t. Nazis might believe it would “improve the human condition” to kill all the Jews.
Muslims might believe it would “improve the human condition” to kill all the infidels.
The same unstated and unexamined assumption is at work in your use of the term “civilization.”
Again, muslims might consider it a higher form of “civilization” if all the infidels were dead or slaves.
In point of fact, I would argue that your logic, by referencing ideas such as “improving the human condition” and “civilization” implicitly rests on the Judeo-Christian absolute (and not relative) claim that all human life has value because it was created in the image of God.
If one discards the Judeo-Christian idea that all human life has value, then from the point of view of one individual, “improving the human condition” and advancing “civilization” might mean wiping out all the other humans on earth except for that individual’s clan group, in order to have more of nature’s bounty to themselves.
Both Kant and Nietzche recognized that there can be no absolute claim to morality without the conception of God.
“Without revelation, the people perish” - Proverbs 29:18
I totally agree.
Like I said this is a rough draft, and totally incomplete.