People are inherently good" or "people are inherently evil"?

Human nature falls within the philosophical concept of objective reality. Human nature, in general, is an objective substance. The effect of external "natural selection mechanisms" on gene mutation and gene recombination in the human genome is the indirect cause of altering individual human nature or the statistical sense of human nature in various human populations. Human nature is not influenced by human will. According to Einstein's theory of relativity, there is no absolute reference frame of space and time. Similarly, there is no absolute moral reference frame. As a result, diverse moral observations of truth, good, beautiful, false, ugly, and evil are produced by human nature under varied moral reference points of different persons. Relative observations are ineffective.In a philosophical sense, relative observations cannot be considered fundamental. Bringing humanity and morality together with the physical oneness of the planet. This conclusion is by far the most accurate understanding of human nature in all of history. The theories of good nature and evil nature are both subjective idealist perspectives. These perspectives not only adopt a one-sided view of situations, but they also accept people's subjective sentiments as objective properties of objects, which contradicts the philosophical assumption that matter is the first nature, consciousness is the second nature, and matter governs consciousness.

/People are born good. The biggest precondition for this proposition is to be a person. That is to say, you have to have parents, someone in the future, to live in human society, that is a man. Otherwise, a person who was thrown into the wild at birth can only be called a human beast, a beast that looks just like a human. The animal instinct is to eat and eat, and in extreme cases the same will eat. Tiger poison will not eat children, unless the baby will die. (But why people eat people is complicated.) For the standard of human good and evil, animal nature is /evil/, evil at the expense of others. In other words, people who are taught can be good, and people who are not taught must be evil. But it is also said that the beginning of human beings, that is to say, the proposition asks about human nature when no one has taught, at this time people are human beasts, if they survive independently, it is the animal instinct that drives them to evil. But this proposition is often about the fundamental nature of human nature, the inherent good and the inherent evil (in this case, the fundamental). Is nature inherently good or evil? In fact, it is the self-deception of human beings. No matter how highly developed, human beings are a species that hopes to survive and reproduce after all. In the final analysis, it is for the better survival of individuals and the better inheritance of genes. So only those who are completely detached from their animal instincts are truly human. But if such men are called saints, which is just another name, and saints are called "real men," then the masses of human beings are nothing more than advanced apes. (But humans feel that they have been beyond the level of ape-man, want to change the title) Then why add the beginning of man? If life is only like the first sight, it is obvious that this is a kind of remembrance, a kind of nostalgia, things have not become bad before the original touching, is difficult to stain the memories of people. So pure, so true, good and beautiful. This is what I understand as the basic goodness of man

which contradicts the philosophical assumption that matter is the first nature, consciousness is the second nature, and matter governs consciousness.