I do not believe that people that commit murders, rape, etc... act MORE selfishly than any other person, since for all purposes every action YOU make is just as selfish. You DON'T rape someone because you don't see benefit in their death, because you know that ulterior consequences would be negative, because natural and culturally infused feelings of guilt would make your life worse, overall, NOT because you are able to put aside your personal interests in favor of the interests of another. 

I used the train example to bring up the idea that having selfish interests which are strongly intermingled with the interests of others does NOT necessarily make you a good person, either. In intention, Hitler was acting about as selfless as a human ever get, outside of impulses (a second-degree selfish desire, consisting of wanting to see the german people/nation in prosperity/power, to protect the german nation from the jews/colonisation/etc...), yet he was still acting immoraly.

It is for me thus necessary to define morality/evil by the desires we have (leading to actions which are in the interest or against the interst of others), since selfishness alone does not allow us to distinguish between people.

In practice, as in, how I believe a government should act/judge, I am utilitarian - so an action (I judge actions and people seperately) is good if it improves our average utility (which could be defined as "total happiness - unhapiness", thoug it's more complex, and, to me, not a linear function.) 

Problem is, a desire to maximize utility isn't something that exists in it s purest form, in mankind, so you can't judge a person by that. What we DO however have, to varying degrees, is a ***Sensibility towards the vulnerabilities of others***. We are able to feel compassion towards others in a situation where their vulnerabilities are exposed, and feel a strong desire to protect these vulnerabilities 

(have to go, will be back...)

Machiavelli realised over 500 years ago that pragmatism can imply also evil actions.

A bit of a case between Thomas Hobbes vs. John Lock.

Morality is a bit hard to define based on what a person or society defines as morally good and evil. But I think people are born neutral and are raised to have or lack moral fiber based on how they are taught to behave.

"because morality changes depending on the person"

you've already broken this discussion straight in your op

if morality is relativistic then there is nothing to discuss since there is no agreed upon standard for what is evil and what is good

" 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."

why should violent or harmful traits be suppressed if there is no standard between people "because morality changes depending on the person" for what is proper and what is not?

and the idea that someone who calls themself a socialist claiming that morality is relative is absurd in itself because socialism is largely about the group agreeing upon patterns of behavior that should be exhibited by all individuals in the group

It depends how you define evil. Is being complacent and willfully remain ignorant evil? Humans lack empathy on any scale larger than their direct environment. For example we all enjoy our cellphones despite children dying from slavery in coltan mines to make that tech possible. Destruction of the planet is fine as long as its not in your backyard. Poor people are just lazy bums that have it all to blame on themselves. Immigrants don't deserve to be on our patch of land.

Sure we'll help a cause here and there to feel good about ourselves, yet threaten our comfy way of life in any way and that's the end of our empathy. There are altruistic people as well, but the vast majority couldn't care less when it's beyond their immediate family. And whether true altruism actually exists is still up for debate, yet at least some humans are wired to feel rewarded from helping strangers.

Definitely most people are not inherently or actively evil, yet the majority also doesn't have the capacity to care about anyone beyond their inner circle. Are we really that upset about the people that lost their lives in a terrorist attack or are we only worried that it might happen to our loved ones? People don't seem to care about distant wars, yet the random nature of terrorism causes concern.

I disagree with your conclusion.

You can believe that a agreed upon pattern of behavior that  should be exhibited by all individuals in the group is the best way to have a healthy, functional,succesful society without making any moral judgement about the behaviors them selves.  It could be purely a practical belief of studying the sucess of many forms of government and comming to a conclusion that for the long term survival of the society,  socialism would be the best solution.

The idear that eventurally if the gap between the top and the bottom gets to large there will be revoulution which threatened the long term health of the society and that socilism is the idear method to pervent such a outcome.  Again not a moral decision but a decision about what is best for the long term health of the society.

You can debate wheather that true or not but it not a debate about morality it a debate about the best form of government for a socity.  Which might not always be the same base on history of that society.  You cant change the behaviors and thinking of a large group of people overnight which could affect the idear form of government at any given time.

As for the orginal question I dont believe people are born good or evil but rather our natural instinct is tribal in nature.  More specifically survial of what we view as our tribe.  Which is shaped as we grow up by the society we live in for what that means.  For example some people believe it morally wrong to kill except in self defense.  Other believe that something like the death penality is perferctly moral way to protect society from those who has done it wrong.  It comes down to what you believe is best for the survial of the "tibe".  

I said that because I was trying to not to turn this into an overtly political discussion. Obviously that topic will come up, and I did it myself. Now, as for the relativity of it, I did that to acknowledge that there are people here that are not socialists and have different opinions on it.

No. I think the whole concept of original sin in Christianity is a misinterpretation of the creation story as known by other Abrahamic religions. I think the idea that humans are inherently evil is a scapegoat for our wrongdoing and psychologically damaging.

Some are.

Most of the species on this planet are born quite capable right from birth. Humans are born weak, fragile, dumb, and inexperienced. The world is/was also a dangerous place. Due to this, all your brain needs to focus on initially, is survival. This makes kids seem "evil" due to their lying and cheating, because its the way they are programmed at birth, on purpose. A lot of this has to do with our species past, since in today's world this isn't really as necessary, but it takes time for mental and biological changes to occur. Once you start to gain experience, stength, and knowledge, your survival instincts/programming, aren't as necessary anymore and are less useful.

As you grow older you start to understand the "pack mentality", like wolves, where the easiest way to live and survive, is to work together. You also learn that some packs are much smarter or stronger than other packs. The packs that are more well off can mostly do away with things like lying and cheating, etc, because they are a well oiled machine that just keeps going. The packs that are dumber and weaker, typically have to resort to lying and cheating in order to stay strong enough to continue and survive.

Being a functional part of a society, or a "good person", is a learned trait, which is a natural progression, especially in todays world. Some people are not born into a functional society, and therefore don't learn these traits, or don't choose to abide by them, for their own survival. You also have the pack leaders that understand that the strongest member rules the pack. These people are typically the CEO's, etc, and can be huge jerks, because that's what it requires to stay on top. Even though these people are well off, someone else is always looking to be the leader, and if your weaker than they are, you lose your seat on the throne, and that seat brings many many benefits, so hence the reason for being huge jerks. Most of the time, but not always.

You also have to take into account things in todays world like government, media, internet, businesses, that are constantly looking to sell you something. Some of these people are just trying to make a living and want your help (some money), and some of these people are looking to become pack leader, and will do what is necessary to get there (taking as much money as possible), even if it means hurting you, a weaker wolf of the pack.

There is also this general thought today, that has been pushed mostly by government and media, that everyone should be equal. This is a tactic used by the wolves on top, to remain the leaders. This can be dangerous because when people who aren't equal, and for many reasons, like IQ for one, think they aren't being treated "equally", can decide to use their most basic childish instincts, lying and cheating, etc, to become more equal based on what they have been told is their "right", hurting others along the way, and weakening the pack.  Yes, we should make a point to end poverty and push for causes that benefit all, but complete equality across the board is completely unnatural and is not how a free market, or the world itself operates. That free market is why the world is such a better place today than it ever was before. We just simply need to refine it in some ways to make it more balanced and acceptable for everyone. 

This is very general, and I could go on, but Human beings are way to complex to explain "good vs evil" or anything for that matter, in just a few paragraphs.