MAN IS INHERENTLY GOOD

Hey guys:). I really wanted to see what you all thought of my major paper topic. So I wanted to post a HIGHLY modified version of my paper for you all to comment on:). Enjoy:)
The debate of whether man is inherently good or inherently evil has long pervaded the history of philosophy and psychology. For example, great philosophers such as Socrates and Plato believed in man’s inherent capable of goodness. Later philosophers and psychologists who followed this line of thinking included such well known figures as Rogers and Maslow. In this view of man, the environment is often blamed for the evil that takes place in this world. Therefore, “man can be good if certain conditions are met” (Staub, 1978, p. 14). Moreover, when those conditions are not meet, and instead the environment facilitates evil, man will have a high propensity of acting in evil ways.
In the history of psychology, many landmark studies have revolutionized the conceptualization of evil by providing evidence that normal well functioning individuals can, and will, act in ways that are evil. Studies such as the Milgram experiment, the Stanford Prison Experiment, and the BBC prison study lend themselves to the idea that man will turn toward evil under the right conditions. Therefore, man is controlled to some degree by the environment. Moreover, that environment can make the average good man or good woman act in evil ways. Agreeing with both Rogers and the experimenters, this writer believes that man is good by nature, but that the environment can affect and change that nature; therefore, evil is a product of the environment not a product of an individual’s nature.
In conclusion, as stated, what is responsible for evil? The environment, the situation, the conditions, and the pressures found therein. In Ervin Staub’s The Psychology of good and evil: Why children, adults, and groups help and harm others, Staub’s position is grounded in the belief that evil is created by the environment. If evil is a product of the environment it seems reasonable to assume that if one understands how evil is created it can be decreased and instead good can be promoted; this is the exact position that Staub takes. As a result, there appears to be some hope in applying the knowledge of the production of evil to reduce it and promote good. In short, if man is inherently good, as I believe, then we can aid in the production of an environment that will facilitate the good that is already in humanity. Therefore, with hope in the belief that humanity is inherently good, we are left with the duty of taking action to ensure that man is allowed to embrace the good that is at mans core.