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. 

So, I guess in an attempt to drive more discussion on this site, I may try to come up with some interesting topics for us to discuss here. So, I decided that this one was an interesting one to do, as I was already talking about it with others, and wanted to see what you guys thought.

Now, the question can already cause problems Specifically the last two words: inherently, and evil. Now, in this discussion, I'll be using the word to mean that a person is born with evil traits, and these traits are not a result of circumstances or events throughout life that drove someone to have become mentally broken. The word evil is much more difficult to accurately define, because morality changes depending on the person, and whether or not someone is even considered evil can vary drastically depending on who you ask. So, I'll leave it a bit open-ended in order to allow wider discussion.

Now, with this I think that the question of fate comes into play. Others may disagree with me, but to me the two are inseparable, because in asking whether someone's inherently evil, that essentially means you're asking if someone's inevitably going to have evil traits. I don't see how there could be any other way of viewing it, unless someone else could explain it to me.

Also, I guess if an individual could be inherently evil, we'd have to assume that the opposite would also apply: that there are people that are inherently good. So, in saying that, one would conclude I assume that in basic terms, someone is not nice because of their efforts to do so, but because it comes naturally to them, much in the same way that someone who is evil would do it because it comes naturally to them.

Another thing to consider with this, would be nurture vs. nature. Now, it seems to be a contiuum/scale, where most people believe that each has at least some effect on the individual, but it is hotly debated how big the slice of the pie is for each. Socialists very much believe that social interactions have a huge influence on the individual, while those with other political views prefer to take more of a view that encourages nature to take over.

OK, now I guess it's on to my views! I guess I may have already hinted at it before, but being a socialist myself, I very much believe that social interactions have a huge impact on one's life. So, In saying that I cannot accept that there is such thing as an inherently good or evil person. Yes, there may be violent traits, but being as though we have survival instincts, I wouldn't consider that to be necessarily evil. They just have to be suppressed. Unfortunately, problems in one's life can exacerbate issues or make them re-surface, which I believe is the trigger to someone committing atrocious actions. It can either happen through rough times, stress or paranoia. Also talking about fate, I do not believe in it myself, so it's much harder for me to think of a human being that is somehow born malicious.

So, that's my write-up on it, I'm wondering what your takes are on it!

The Bible is just 1 of many moral codes and even it condones many things that are considered wrong or evil by modern standards. Evil is subjective, it changes based on who you're talking to and when 

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. 

"You're conflating the breaking of a society's rules/laws with evil. They're not the same thing. "

" Evil for the most part is not subjective but laws/rules of the land are. "

You're conflating the breaking of a society's rules/laws with evil. They're not the same thing. Evil for the most part is not subjective but laws/rules of the land are. 

Agreed.

I'd say the contrary. You can objectively follow the rules of the land. I would claim that saying someone is evil is inherintly subjective.