"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."

what you typed here is inherently contradictory because all morality is about is the best patterns of behavior for society and the point i'm making is if someone is bringing a relativistic view to that, then they cannot be a socialist

anyone who really believes that is deeply confused about what socialism and morality are

"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."

tell that to germany of the 1930s and 40s

"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. "

and you think that you can divorce morality from governance for some reason?

People can't be born evil. It's impossible, they haven't developed mentally yet. In order to be evil, the consciousness would have to have developed an ego and superego. Those don't develop until later on. All that exists at birth is the id, there is no reference point for good/evil developed until later in life.

In addition, the whole "all humans are sinners" is a fairly basic Christian concept, but that doesn't necessarily mean evil - and he statement is usually misrepresented, Jesus used the term to show the stupidity of judging others based on old rule-ridden prophetical books of the Pharisee Jews. I'm not a Christian myself, but the Gospel commandment of loving your neighbours and loving the existence of the world are extremely common traits among people; and this transcends Christianity, as a lot of agnostics, atheists, Muslims, Buddhists, socialists, liberals, conservatives (maybe not American conservatives), and others seem to be mostly caring and people who love their families, their neighbours, their co-workers, and the world most of the time. There are those that are colder, mistrusting and even kind of paranoid judgmental types, but these are a small minority of people, maybe 1/10 tops.

To summarize. I don't agree that people are inherently evil; the vast majority of people are good or mostly good. It's also not possible for people to be born evil because babies lack the mental development for good or evil.

Most people arent born "evil", they have empathy, they can of course learn to ignore that feeling, only people with psychopathic tendency having been born with little to no empathy could be seen as being born "evil", they make up about 10% of the population

OP believes in that there exists a concept known as 'good' or 'evil' on a supposed continuous spectrum but I on the other hand don't see such ... 

The idea of 'good' and 'evil' should be beyond most of our comprehension of relationships in our physiological life. What I imagine that OP wanted to know is if whether or not some humans are born with negative tendencies in behaviour ? 

Now, how angry would OP get if I said that this is NOT a political matter and that the question above implicated is ascertained to be a fact of life instead ? 

Just as people are born with different abilities why couldn't the same be said of behaviour ?

It's been found that violent criminals such as killers and rapists can be more frequently born that way ... 

I believe OP, that your frame of reference in assuming that all people who are born with near identical environmental conditions should attain similar lifestyles but that is simply not true when people are also born with different physiological properties that also affect behaviour too ... 

Just as how we are hard coded to react and respond to the environment around us, nature will return the favour to us. How exactly does one define 'good' and 'evil' if only a single man in the universe to exist ? (You're mistaken if you think that nature and nurture is separate, nurture is a part of nature.) 

So to answer your question OP, yes there exists some people who are inherently relatively malignant to begin with ... 

I think you've missed the boat on this one.

You did something you wanted to do - e.g. a self-serving action that had the consequence of benefiting others (charity) but this is not selfless which is a misnomer. You seem to prove my point by finding some semblance of peace about it in order to "sleep well at night". Such an action brings you joy at helping your fellow man in need of assistance in life.

Now if you donated to charity despite not wanting to do so and not achieving any positive effect from it, then you might have a point but I do not find such a scenario plausible in any possible Universe. We act in accordance with our desires - whether such desires are benevolent or not is really not the purpose of our actions.

Evil men being elected as leaders of nations around the world including the notorious Donald Trump. Trump is a terrible role model leader running the most powerful nation in the world. The future looks very bleak under Trump's reign of tyranny. Trump has a notorious reputation of evil deeds and actions. Trump's endless rants on social media portray him as an evil megalomaniac. Hopefully when Trump's reign ends, a good leader with a bright vision will emerge and lead the USA in a positive direction and onto the path of salvation.