What is the natural state of humanity?

All of the recent reading we've been assigned has made me question what the natural state of humanity is.  Are we naturally evil but seeking redemption?  Or are we basically good but make mistakes and commit sins?  I've heard so many opposing opinions.  I mean, this is the basis of philosophy isn't it?  I suppose the best way to start such an inquiry is to begin at the beginning- with the actions of children.

"The absence of parish officers who should be controlling the boys is an intentional rebuke on Hogarth's part; he agreed with Henry Fielding that one of the causes for the rising crime rate was the lack of care from the overseers of the poor, who were too often interested in the posts only for the social status and monetary rewards they could bring." (490)

The quote I want to begin with draws from the plate engravings on the stages of cruelty.  They depict various gangs of boys viciously torturing animals through multiple means.  The children are left untended by adults, probably because they are just poor orphans.  And yes, they're being terribly cruel yet I don't think it's simply because they have free reign.  It's not that they're "free," they're actually just being ignored.  They were probably ignored most of their short lives and this lashing out is because no one was ever there to protect them from the same sorts of acts by adults or fellow children.  The boys are being shaped by their lack of community.  By the absence of compassion.  They're trying to garner power over something because they are so powerless in their own lives.  I can hardly stand to think on the pain they're giving these innocent animals but I believe it's not because they are naturally savage like the boys of Lord of the Flies.

http://www.globalnerdy.com/2008/10/21/salmagundi-for-tuesday-october-21-2008/

"Kids who tend to be completely unresponsive to human counselors and who generally shun physical and emotional closeness with people often find themselves talking openly to, often crying in front of, a horse." (501)

In fact, here is evidence that kids aren't heartless monsters.  At least, not naturally.  I've actually read about this type of therapy for children who have been through difficult circumstances.  It works with dogs as well but I think horses are more effective because of their size.  They're quite large animals but are easily scared an usually quite gentle.  They have such human qualities and seem bigger than life to young kids.  I can't quite put my finger on how this is a magical combination but it really is.  There have even been programs started that take ponies into hospitals to visit patients and make them better.  I think they particularly worked with cancer patients and the changes in people's attitude towards life is astounding.   So how can children be evil if they open up so much to animals like this?

http://sedona-healing-retreats.com/equine-assisted-therapy.html

"They found, however, not only that these families owned far more pets than other households in the same community but also that few of the animals were older than 2." (498)

Ok, so not all cases are so beautifully cut and dry.  I pulled this bit from the explanation of animal abuse being intimately linked to child abuse and general human cruelty.  In the article, it explained that children who had been abused tended to hurt pets or other animals in order to regain some power over their situation.  I was immediately reminded of Ender's Game and Ender's brothers sadistic tendencies.  I know it's just a fictional character just there are always cases where people hurt animals and not always for good reasons.  So why are these abusive caretakers the owners of more pets than others?  There's something innately wrong with that.  I understand why the animals are so young- they probably run off or become violent in response to the maltreatment-but why the number of them?  It's obviously not a good situation for anyone.  I just don't know.

"Those selected were chosen for their lack of psychological issues, crime history, and medical disabilities in order to obtain a representative sample." (486)

The last piece of evidence on the debate of natural good vs. natural evil draws a totally different conclusion.  During the Milgram and Zimbardo experiments, the people used in simulations dealing with power and cruelty used the most average of people.  And still, the terrible crimes against other people persisted.  It didn't matter that they had an easy or hard childhood, whether they were raised Christian or Atheist, whether they had a genetic predisposition towards a certain temperament.  So how could they fall into such base acts of torture and humiliation of others?  That's still a mystery to me.

I can't stand to believe that we are naturally sinful.  I can't agree with the thought that we are doomed to create more misery, because if that's true than I don't know why I try each and every day.  So whether true or not, I chose to see the good as the basis of life.