Is human nature good or is human nature evil?

I just listened to a debate contest. After listening to the contest, I would like to share some of my views. I'm not trying to make a complete argument, but just talk about the game, the problems I didn't solve during the argument, and my thoughts on the thinking dilemma. 1. Significance of the debate Nowadays, it has almost become the consensus of mankind that human nature is evil. No matter scientists conduct biological evolution research by controlling variables, or the mainstream of philosophical thoughts, they have recognized the tendency of human self-protection. Living in groups is not out of intrinsic good, but out of the need to fight natural enemies, altruism is not out of nature, but out of the rational choice of equal exchange. So why does it still make sense to talk about human goodness? Because we still have hope in humanity, because even the worst of us know guilt and insecurity. And the heart still that conscience, is the source of goodness. Perhaps we are not the saints of altruism, but we can still have relative kindness. The same debate about values has different meanings in different times. Although the first time I saw the topic was the same old meme that has been discussed countless times in Chinese debate circles, I was also devastated. Jiang Changjian's sentence "the night gave me black eyes, but I used it to find light" is really an eternal classic. It is an era when we need to admit our self-value, have the courage to recognize our desires and live in harmony with our desires, so as to create more social and personal wealth. Now, our heart evidence has recognized the evil of human nature, the post-90 generation of independent personality has long been awakened, the reform and opening up has been implemented for 30 spring and autumn, today to see this debate, perhaps there is a bit of moving meaning. Now that our material lives have been secured, it is time for us, in addition to having the courage to recognize our inner desires, to reflect on whether we can move up the spiritual ladder as well. How many previous generations fought on the front lines to protect their homeland? Do their hopes for the next generation create a warmer, peaceful and well-meaning world? Therefore, at this historical stage, can we discuss the possibility and evidence of the inherent goodness of human nature, and find a more sincere hope for the bright future of the world. The definition that interests me most in this debate is not human nature, but "good" and "evil." But unlike other arguments, contestants must find a boundary between "good" for the right and "evil" for the wrong. So where is the line between good and evil? Goodness, like optimism, tolerance, freedom and equality, can never be without limits. So relative kindness is something we can talk about. In this competition, the players define "good" as "altruism", which is vague and incommensurable, because in mutually beneficial relationships, although there is self-interest and altruism, there is no discussion of good and evil. Only when self-interest and altruism conflict, in other words, only when there is the possibility of self-interest at the expense of others and altruism, good and evil will be highlighted. There is no doubt that it is evil to benefit oneself at the expense of others, and harming oneself for the benefit of others can also be identified as the category of saints, rather than the relative goodness of ordinary people. There are also two cases, self-interest without harming others, and self-interest without harming yourself. Self-interest without harming others is the premise of survival, because life itself is to take care of yourself. Doing no harm to others, or doing very little harm to others, such as stopping for a few minutes to give directions to someone who is lost, is a manifestation of "relative kindness". In the finals, the two sides were locked in an example of a baby crying in the middle of the night to drink milk and to disturb its parents' sleep to avoid the presence of a younger sibling. The baby may not be aware of it, but the crying habit is a result of natural selection in an evolutionary process. The opposing side tries to explain that human nature is evil. I don't agree with that, because there is a new situation here, which is to profit at the expense of others without knowing it. Caring for other people's feelings and understanding of others, like understanding of the objective world, are faculties that require perception and experience, and are not innate instincts. So babies in the case of unable to take care of themselves, not to think of a way of survival without harming others and self-interest. It is the existence of natural selection, the instinct of the living creature that reveals the hardships of life, but more reflects the softness and kindness of human heart. Self-interest is the essence of existence, do not know self-interest life can not move forward. From the point of view of human nature as evil, the question is whether selfish ways harm others. If there is a selfish impulse to benefit oneself at the expense of others in human nature, then human nature is evil. From the perspective of human nature being good, the question is whether it is good for others without harming ourselves. If the enthusiasm to help others is inherent in human nature, then human nature is good. The opposition side also repeatedly used an example is the desert island survival, cannibalism to eat, desperate response to determine the nature of human beings can be evil at the expense of others. But I don't agree with this case, because cannibalism in a desperate situation is the embodiment of evil, and a good man with conscience will peacefully accept death rather than killing his fellow man. The question is whether the "evil" in despair can prove to be human nature. I am not saying that despair will inspire evil in human nature. I mean, despair will reflect a person's character, the so-called "a friend in need is a friend indeed", but this character is an adult's self-cultivation accumulated through years of experience, rather than human nature itself. Therefore, the middle value of good and evil is to benefit oneself without harming others -- survival itself. Relatively good is the bottom line of not harming others no matter how good it is, while relatively evil is the moral bottom line of not harming others knowing that it will harm others.