Philosophers disagree. Some believe, like those who believe in the doctrine of original sin, that humans are naturally evil. Some, like most buddhists, believe that humans are naturally good. Some, like many scientists, believe that humans are naturally neither good nor evil.
.
There is no definitive answer to whether humans are naturally good or evil, as it depends on various factors such as environmental influences, genetics, and personal experiences. Humans have the capacity for both good and evil behavior, and it is our choices and actions that ultimately determine whether we lean towards one or the other.
Humans, are both. We are not all good, but we are not all bad either. Just so I don't carry on. Your answer is Both.
God gave us free will God gave humans free will 0
John Locke believed that human nature was initially neutral, with the potential for both good and evil depending on individual experiences and education. He argued that humans were born as a tabula rasa, or blank slate, and that their character and behavior were shaped by their environment and interactions with society.
The nature of human beings is a complex topic and can vary among individuals. Some argue that humans are inherently good, while others believe that humans can exhibit both good and evil behaviors. Ultimately, it is a matter of perspective and context.
One philosopher who believed that humans were evil by nature was Thomas Hobbes. In his work "Leviathan," Hobbes argued that humans are naturally self-interested and competitive, which leads to a state of constant conflict and strife. He believed that a strong central authority was necessary to prevent chaos and maintain order in society.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau was a philosopher who believed that humans are naturally good and are corrupted by society and its institutions. He argued that it is society that imposes inequality, competition, and conflict, leading to human moral decay.
The concept of good and evil is subjective and varies among different cultures and individuals. Some argue that humans have an inherent sense of morality, while others believe that good and evil are learned behaviors influenced by society and environment. Ultimately, the presence of good and evil in human nature is a complex topic with no definitive answer.
Hanfeizi believed that humans were naturally bad, while Laozi believed that humans were naturally good.
Hanfeizi
Rousseau believed that human evil was caused by society.
Only evil.
Mostly good but some evil as punishment.
Apollo gave evil to humans because he would slaughter them
People disagree on whether man is naturally good or bad. Here are some opinions:Man is naturally evil. don't trust anyone
He brought Good
He believed that people were good in their natural state and we are only influenced to do bad. he opposed Hobbes thoughts that human kind was naturally selfish and evil. Rousseau believed that humans naturally have good morals because they are able to empathize with others.
In the Bible story, only humans ate the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, so only humans had this knowledge.
Aphrodite was to bring both good and evil to humans to show them love and effection but to also break hearts and give undesireable feelings
Unlike Confucius or Laozi, Hanfeizi taught that humans were naturally evil. He believed that they needed harsh laws and stiff punishments to force them to do their duty. Hope this helps. :)