The first definition that should be considered is human nature itself. My general understanding of the term is that it is all of the common, inherent traits that human beings possess. This encompasses the very things that make us human. However, I think the term's problem comes with the word nature. Assumingly, the nature part refers to the untouched, natural essence that makes up all humans.
[...] This implies that we have large numbers of definitions for good and evil, and not one universal definition that the study of human nature should hypothetically have. “Aggression” is a common term that comes up when discussing human nature. Overall, the word is associated with violence, fighting, or even just an intimidating verbal barrage. But philosophers, psychologists, and the like haven't been able to fully agree on what exactly the term is. Some people, Sigmund Freud being the most apparent, seem to think that aggression is a human's natural proclivity towards violence. [...]
[...] This sums up the general theme for evolutionists; human nature is subject to change. So clearly, there is quite a division in the agreement of what human nature is. In defining human nature, one of the main goals is to define whether humans are inherently or However, good and evil are two very ambiguous terms. I will illustrate this by discussing cultural conditioning. Throughout history, both terms have been generally defined differently among cultures. People who live among a culture will almost always adopt that culture's thinking, whether they consciously choose to or not. [...]
using our reader.