On the Nature of Humanity

So, today we had a heated debate in British literature about human nature. We started speaking about freedom of the press and its application today because of Milton's "Areopagitica." Somehow the discussion turned into a debate about human nature. It made me start thinking...what is the nature of humans?

Well, there are three trains of thought: human beings are inherently good, human beings are inherently neutral, and human beings are inherently evil. All three have good points for and against, but I feel as though one must be true based off of Biblical, experential, and secular proofs. Let me expand on my idea: humans are inherently, or naturally, evil.

Let's start by establishing the idea that we can all agree that humans are capable of both good and evil, almost equally in some areas, and in others in a more lop-sided way. Humans are not perfect, and never can be (except Christ, which is a completely different discussion). Therefore, we can establish the understanding that all humans are potentially good and potentially evil, which all people can agree on with little debate.

Next, we must determine if the natural state of humans is chaos or order, evil or good. Take a child, for our example. A child (until a certain age) is innocent and cannot comprehend the difference between good and evil. They must be taught and disciplined in order to distinguish between the two. Do we teach a child how to do evil or how to do good? That is the question. By examining a child's inherent habits, one can see that we must teach a child how to do good, not how to do evil.

For example, if one child brings a toy car over to play with another child, it does not take very long until the second child begins to covet what he does not have. He tries to steal the other child's toy car and is therefore doing evil. No one tells him that he is doing wrong, or even that there will be consequences. He only does what he knows how to do and doesn't analyze his actions. Children are innocent, not being socialized or affected by their surroundings, and they are therefore the most natural state of humanity that can be found.

So, even if the child doesn't know that what he is doing is wrong, does that make it wrong? The answer is yes, of course. If a person grew up in a society where morality was not taught, or better yet, where the good was taught and not the bad, and the person grew angry with another person and killed him/her, would that not be wrong? It's like this..."If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?" Of course, because that is the natural state of things. That's why they are called NATURAL LAWS.

Let me pose another question: is it easier to do wrong or right? Is it easier to tell a lie to someone in order to gain an advantage over them? Or is it easier to apologize after hurting someone by lying? The lie takes less effort and feels natural at the time, while the apology is harder but is more beneficial in the long run.

I know I have come to this conclusion in a roundabout way, but it's the best I could do. Post any comments with thoughts, refutations, or revelations from God (jk) that you might have.