Quoting myself so my post isn't overlooked (it was the last post on the page).

Quote Originally Posted by Yellow Submarine
Default
I answered "Neither - There are just many shades of gray."

People are born good, but it is in the environment in which they live that affects their overall personality and moral code. Their status, cultural beliefs, etc also come into play. Here's an example. Person A is born into a middle-class family in the US. Person B is born on the streets and no longer has any family. Person A's beliefs will most likely be different than those of Person B, and therefore they will most likely have a different moral code. Whether Person A is more "good" than Person B depends on each person's individual character. The family of Person A may be a pessimistic, nonchalant family that hates the world, while Person B has met people who have given him an optimistic outlook on life. Once again, environment comes into play. Or is it that Person B is could be naturally good, and Person A is naturally evil? I'd like to believe that theory, but how is one to know what is good and bad without learning to tell the two apart?

What is good and evil?

That's what makes this whole thread flawed. There is no universal good, and no universal evil. It all depends on each person's individual perspective. Person A might think Action A is terrible, while Person B sees nothing wrong with it whatsoever. Therefore, I believe this poll should be renamed "Debate: Does man usually adhere to the most common moral code, or not?" However, that title is a bit long.

I wish I could keep building a wall of text, but I'm out of discussion points.