Considering the amount of people, I'd be surprised if there weren't some people, maybe even a considerable amount of them, that are inherently evil at least to a certain extent, but at the same time, I simply can't see the majority of people being inherently evil. Perhaps a lot of people have inherently evil traits, but overall, most people aren't inherently evil. Whether that makes them inherently good or not is less clear though, and depends on how you want to define good. Personally I don't think it's a very interesting question right now, so I'm not going to go there.

Little kids learn to lie at a very young age. But do they know it's evil? Does that make a difference? I'm not sure. What I am sure of is that we all turn evil at some point. One lie, one theft, one cheat on a spouse, one time cursing The Lord's name, are all evil. Once any of these have happened, we have become evil/a sinner.

Some are more evil than others. Some only do few evil things, while others delight in it and make it a lifestyle. I think it's a combination of genetics, environment, our knowledge, and maybe more. I do know that we can embrace evil or fight it. We all have a choice. We can choose to embrace what is good. We can all change. We are not preprogrammed machines. My own change is enough to tell me that.

Very wrong. The Bible clearly defines what is evil. Most other religions follow many of the same beliefs. If one just wakes up, grabs a gun, goes out in the street and kills the first person they see, that will nearly universally be considered evil. 

Yes this. Raising kids mainly comes down to teaching them empathy. "How would you feel if someone did that to you" My kids will lie when they think they can get away with it (amateurs still), cheat at games, steal (small stuff), and mostly think of themselves first, sympathy has to be taught.
Ofcourse they can be incredibly sweet too, yet tears welling up out of joy/pride when that happens is proof that that's far from the norm!

Another myth is "sleeping like a baby" Babies are far from peaceful sleepers, 6 years later, still no regular sleeping through the night. The expression should be sleeping like a senior. Yet kids are innocent and naive, they don't know any better. However it's not the desirable kind of innocence. It's the kind of innocense that let's them torture bugs, snails or frogs for fun. The same innocence a cat has toying with a mouse.

Lol, have you ever considered not every body follows that definition ? 

There are universally preferable behaviours. They can be seen as those behaviours which lead to an objectively measurable increase in the standard of living within a population.

Things like rape, assault, murder and theft (Aristotle's big 4) are always evil. As Aristotle said: you can define your own ethics, but if your system of ethics finds any of the big 4 good, then you have gone astray in your reasoning.

All four come down to a violation of property rights. Your body is your property, as are the fruits of the labour of your body.

I think almost everybody is born with the capability to violate such property rights, but also the ability to understand them. I think there is a correlation between low IQ and criminal behaviour (even when you factor in the fact that the really smart criminals rarely get caught), which explains to some extent why we see so much more evil behaviour in certain parts of the world than others.

Most european and east asian populations now possess the traits that ensure people are less likely to become criminals (high IQs, lower aggression levels etc.), so in these populations it's most likely environmental factors and ideologies that would cause significant numbers of the population to become evil.

Intelligent people can be taught ideas that justify blatant violations of property rights, such as the OP's chosen ideology: socialism.

So I guess my answer is...no. Most people aren't inherently evil. People just sometimes give into their base urges (because they can't see the consequences at the time) or are misguided.

Interesting topic, VGP.

First, I've always felt that "evil" doesn't really exist, in the same way "cold" or "darkness' don't exist. Evil is merely the absence of good. Not sure if that changes the discussion at all, but it's the root of how I feel on this topic...since the question, at least for me, becomes, "Are humans not inherently good?"

My answer probably gets a little convoluted...but the long story is that I feel everyone is born good, but can be warped by their environment. I honestly feel that if, say, someone like Hitler were to be raised in a family with much different ethical values regarding racism, he would have grown into a significantly different person. How a person is nurtured, what ethics are instilled on them by society, and what kind of people they connect with, I personally believe all of these play a much bigger role than anything genetic.

That being said, a lack of this nurturing means that someone won't be instilled with these values by default, and so someone raised in an environment lacking these values would be more likely to make choices based on what is most immediately convenient to them...which isn't necessarily "good". Looking at it that way, it does seem to poke a hole in my logic. I suppose it boils down to...are these baser motivations "good" or not...which I don't really have an answer to.

I feel like I didn't really answer the question...but it's interesting to type about!

As I've gotten older, I found myself much more passionate about the world and politics etc.

To me, I wouldn't say people are inherently "good" or "evil". The REAL illusion is that a LOT of people BELIEVE themselves to be good, yet they can be overly apathetic and/or selfish without seeming to have a single qualm about it. THAT is often misinterpreted as "evil".

People just need to take others' opinions into consideration and have a REAL dialogue with them. As opposed to assuming that their way is the RIGHT way, and everyone else is just fighting them for fun.

I would define "evil" as the desire and/or action of doing harm just for the sake of doing harm and/or out of pleasure (on the surface level, I think it is for revenge of some sort).

Given that definition, yes; some people are inherently evil and nurture/socialization can only help to a point. Socialization is merely a method for people to live together without having to worry about being killed that much while you work together, and that is not exclusively human. Every hierarchy structure which involves living beings has to employ such a method because otherwise you just get more enemies.

For example there are socio/psycopaths (I'm still not sure on the consensus of those 2 words), people who are made aware through socialization that some things are bad and others are good, but these people don't think them as inherently good or bad at all, they just know that that's what we think and if they want to have a comfortable life they should follow these morals and so they do. That's the thing that bothers me about the "teach boys that rape is wrong" thing, saying as if rapers rape because they don't know it is wrong. They know it is wrong alright, they just don't care. Now, socio/psycopaths aren't an example of "evil", since the vast majority aren't evil, but more of the limits of "nurture" and socialization.

It is natural to be "nice" and "evil" sometimes (emphasis on "natural"). We have millions of years behind us of evolution while living in hierarchical structures; it is built into us. Now that we attributed it to morality is a different thing.

I think biologically we have an inherent need to protect our organism - our self - from all external threats whether from macroscopic species likes apes and dinosaurs or microscopic ones like bacteria and viruses.

Ironically, exposure to both of these, with some limitations, can help provide less friction in the long run whether it is culturally(macroscopic) by getting along with others or whether it is through a stable immune system(microscopic).

So yes, we are inherently self-protective, but external exposure will change that. That being said, even our baseline levels of self-protectiveness differ, the biggest difference appearing in gender. Women clearly have a different baseline level reaction to external stimuli that is different from their own, but it's not as simple as yes/no.