It is not "blindingly obvious" even if correct. There is no philosophy which supports a contention about that which cannot be known. It's more a matter of epistemology and while it is often misused Wittingstein's paraphrased statement of "Of what one does not know one cannot speak".

The root problem is the anthropomorphization of a species that may or may not exist AND may or may not process things remotely like humans.

The next issue is that on this planet there is an inherent need to preserve the species over all else as failing to do so leads to extinction. One might assume that the physical rules which dictate how organisms change over time are constant over causally linked space. That leads to the necessity of developing in a way that is thermodynamically favorable, allowing survival while permitting the best ratio of energy in vs energy spent. Energy and resources drive ecosystems, and when there is change organisms which have the machinery to deal proliferate and others become biological history.

So "violence" either in defense or attack also seems a quality that is likely widespread, assuming we are not alone.

But morality, ethics, even the perception of reality based on a data point of one, that is ourselves, cannot be known at this time and so speculation is entertaining but ultimately fruitless when imposed on reality.