Of course I don't think of nature as good or evil. I just used the word 'evil' for the sake of argument. If we intentionally behave 'naturally', we are behaving often in a way that we tend to term 'evil'. Amoral is the best term for nature, like you said. But, to act 'naturally', and also be 'intelligent beings capable of decision-making and imagination', causes the paradox. We have those same natural impulses, but we try to temper them from some learned or inborn desire to categorize. 'Anarchy' is the only natural state, and perhaps it just needs to be taken with all of its ugliness. But natural selection is nasty business. We inherently don't like it. We are the only species I can think of that regularly supports and praises those that would not survive those physically or intellectually would not have gone on to breed otherwise, and therefor, by interrupting natural selection, we may 'devolve'. And theres another paradox. That tendency to protect and defend the defenseless, is something that helped get us to where we are. Allowed us TO evolve in the first place. Likewise, it could 'backfire' in the long run. Gar!... What was just a drunken post has turned into a full blown philosophical clusterfuck.
Oh, and I liked the forest battlefield analogy. Unfortunately, it makes me wonder if, for instance, bombing the hell out of Iraqis for oil, can ALSO be termed 'survival'. Greed seems a 'natural' occurrence, and war for riches could be seen as survival of the State, at least by those calling the shots, making it just as acceptable in that light as trees blocking the sun from the undergrowth. I have to think about this more.