Is it naive to suppose that everyone has some good in them?

[hey jo]

I've asked this question to some of my classmates and acquaintances, and have also posted this question before and got some interesting responses. Here are some of them:

 

>"What was the good in Hitler? That he can paint? ... and Stalin? That once he was a seminarian?"

 

>"It's positive to try to see the good in people, but sadly, in a very small minority of people, there could be some who are 100% bad"

 

>"The worst tyrants in history have shown kindness to animals or love to another or some other indicator of a good quality. "

 

>"Maybe you need to spend some time visiting the max security block of some prisons."

 

>"No, I don't think it's naive to think that way. However, people who are mentally ill might be a different story."

 

>"Most people do have at least a grain of decency in them, but there are some that clearly do not. they are simply no damn good. poison to everyone they come in contact with."

 

What are your views on this topic?

[HellFrost666]

No, I don't think that is naive at all... Without the bad the good can not exist, and vise versa.

[puff.tm.dragon]

the power ranger villians are 100% evil

[hey jo]

the power ranger villians are 100% evil

 

rita repulsa and lord zedd? oh they sure are evil to the core!

[GalaxyC]

Everyone has their own version of what they consider to be good so no it isn't niave. It's all about how your perceive what "good" is. Some people would consider the BNP to do "good" work. Others see what they do as "bad".