There is a difference between the knowledge of our minds and the nature of our hearts; in a pure state of calm uninterrupted by conceptually formed bias, the nature of a person is compassion, but that can be offset by fear and desire, these are also in our nature but they are impulsive; they are situation tension.
The other way compassion can be corrupted is by knowledge; violence and bigotry are not our nature, they are our capacity, there is a difference; you may be violent according to impulsive reaction, for example out of fear you strike, but that is defensive, offensive violence comes mentally, we intellectually decide to do it and we over-ride our sense of compassion to do it.
Ultimately our behaviour depends on embracing compassion, disciplining fear and desire where appropriate and keeping knowledge in perspective as a tool, not as a means to by-pass our nature, that is quite unnatural.
Knowledge serves to augment our nature, not replace it, and that means we have to prioritise compassion over fear/desire; where there are cases where impulsive nature is acceptable, there are also cases where compassion is more important; not just in not harming others but also in helping them, so where your indulgence of impulse is not hurting anyone is different from where that time is not spent helping, both are a consideration, but one is actual Law while the other is conscience.
To clarify; harmful behaviour, especially acts against consent, are a line, I’d say a naturally existing line(Law) if you are aware of compassion and consequence. But choosing not to help others; this is more a matter of Conscience, not a Law, as such it is less about the external reality, more about your own internal peace of mind.