Humans are inherently good and inherently bad. I don't really understand the need to lean one way or the other on this question. I think the study of history has lead me to believe that we are not making "progress" from bad to good, and neither did we start out good and become corrupted by this or that.

So, I guess history has made me come upon to the notion that if you are concerned about things like "good" and "bad" then you have to be committed to a process or a perhaps more accurately, a struggle. We aren't going to overcome suffering, inequality, or perhaps more on point for your question reach a point where people stop doing "bad things". I don't think it will ever happen. That doesn't mean that you can't look at two points in history and think, from a moral (not necessarily a historical) standpoint and say X seems "better" than Y and here is why I think so. But the idea that we're on a unidirectional arc doesn't fly either.

Therefore, insofar as that isn't a unidirectional path, that struggle (between the good and bad aspects of our nature) will be unending. Even if you imagine the most perfect society full of the most perfect humans you can conjure in your mind, it would still be a struggle to maintain it.

The interesting thing about studying pornography, obscenity, and erotic literature for me has been the realization that figures in the past weren't "all good" or "all bad" necessarily--they were human. There is a tendency in older history towards "Great Man" hagiography, but my studies have pushed me into the realization that these great men weren't pure and clean and perfect, they were just human, with similar desires and passions as modern-day people. It's made me, in a strange way, more sympathetic towards peoples failures and more appreciative of their successes.

For example, take Samuel Pepys. He was quite a successful man for having been born to a tailor and a daughter of a butcher. He has a talent for administration and became the Chief Secretary to the Admiralty under both King Charles and James II. He wouldn't have really been remembered by historians however, if it was not for the diaries he kept as a young man. The most famous event for pornography historians was the L'escholle event:

January 13, 1668: "....stopped at Martin's my bookseller, where I saw the French book which I did think to have had for my wife to translate, called L'escholle des Filles, but when I came to look into it, it is the most bawdy, lewd book that ever I saw, rather worse than Puttana Errante (a even more famous 16th century erotic work) - so that I was ashamed of reading in it."

February 8, 1668: Thence away to the Strand to my bookseller's, and there stayed an hour and bought that idle, roguish book, L'escholle des Filles, which I have bought in plain binding (avoiding the buying of it better bound) because I resolve, as soon as I have read it, to burn it, that it may not stand in the list of my books, nor among them, to disgrace them if it should be found.

February 9, 1668: Lord's Day. Up, and at my chamber all the morning and in the office, doing business and also reading a little of L'escholle des Filles, which is a mighty lewd book, but yet not amiss for a sober man once to read over to inform himself in the villainy of the world....[later that afternoon] I to my chamber, where I did read through L'escholle de Filles a lewd book, but what doth me no wrong to read for information sake... but it did hazer my prick para stand all the while, and una vez to decharger; and after I had done [with it], I burned it, that it might not be among my books to my shame; and so at night to supper and then to bed.

Pepys isn't a Great Man even though he accomplished some great things in his life, but he is a human, and that's important when considering any historical figure, to understand them as human.

Another example is William Wilberforce who is often cited as a 'Great Man' as he was responsible the Slave Trade Act of 1807, which banned slavery in England. Lesser known is his passion for moral reform, as he championed both the Proclamation Society and The Society for the Suppression of Vice. He was the main figure responsible for drafting and championing the Obscene Publications Act of 1857--the first such law in England.

Reading his letters, it's not that he thought porn was bad, or wanted to remove people's enjoyment, he really believed and understood these types of texts as morally evil and reprehensive, and sought to do good for his fellow man, just as he did with the slavery act.

Studying history has given me more sympathy for my fellow human, I suppose!

I think that a lot of people get into military history because of their childhood. Fond memories of plastic army soldiers, and jingoistic, watered down tales of derring-do. I know I certainly was drawn to it for the glory when I was a little kid. War was running around the woods with a stick going "bang", and the most contentious issues were arguments about who got who. And many people I don't believe move beyond that. Military history, for many, still remains a mostly clean affair, with the good ol'GI-citizen soldier going and liberating Europe from the clutches of Nazism (LOOKING AT YOU STEPHEN AMBROSE!). We simply forget the abject horrors of war. The dying cries of "mother" or simply "water". The smell of shit that permeates a battlefield. Widows, orphans, and parents burying their spouses, parents, or sons. And that, of course, is only in wars that are fought with close attention to the rules.

I was listening to an interview given by Shelby Foote, the author of several Civil War books, and it struck me as so perfect, that I had to transcribe it and save it.

"There is a general belief that war books promote a love of war, and that is true about bad war books, but every serious book about a battle or about a war, if it’s serious, is bound to be anti-war. […] Because the truth is, it’s more bloody than it is glorious, and the suffering is a far bigger part of it than the patriotism and the glory, and that will come across with an honest writer. Cheap literature hurts everybody, but decent, honest literature will always carry this anti-war message, it’s bound to be there. No matter how patriotic a man may sound, underlying it, if he has a good eye, everybody is going to see through the phony patriotism and the ephemeral glory, and to the real suffering of it and especially the absurdity of it."

And I couldn't agree more. War is absurd, and I now find great distaste in books that don't present that side of the conflict alongside. It is a disservice to everyone to separate the good parts of war from the bad.

Now, this doesn't really answer your question I guess. I don't believe people are either good or bad, and studying war, really, has shown me that anyone is capable of reaching both extremes. So what I can say about how studying conflict has affected my outlook on human nature is that it has sobered it. Sure, I still enjoy reading an uplifting story about some brave soldier saving his buddies, but you can't shake the images of the terrible human cost.

While this question verges on a poll or survey-type question, we've discussed it and decided to allow it as a historiography question. This can be a more open thread due to the nature of the question, but please keep your comments on-topic!

The common theme I tend to see throughout many events in history, be it Ancient Rome's conquering of Europe, to Napoleon or the Third Reich is that certain people, possessing the ability to manipulate huge amounts of people with their speeches or actions, Repeatedly are seen causing the "bad behaviour".

I don't think humans are inherently good or bad, I'd say ignorant would be the best way to describe it, ignorant and gullible. In the developed world I like to think that we're better now because of our education etc... but when you stop and look at events happening right now, we're not much different than 1000 years ago in terms of behaviour. The wars in the middle-east certainly resemble that of the Crusades at least in death count, The annexing of Crimea for example, is something you'd read as a dated event in a history book, prefixing a war or conflict.

That's my little spiel about it, throughout history you see people easily manipulated to do evil things and very few to do good.

One conclusion I have come to is that good people have the capacity of evil and evil people have the capacity to be good. Each part is a part of what makes everyone human; unpredictable and extraordinary situations make likewise reactions. Some of histories most discussed figures can be argued as evil yet show qualities and capacity of what we would consider as a human or good reaction. Take Hitler for example who shows the capacity of love for his countrymen in World War I and the realities and horror of the situation therein of which he writes about in Mien Kampf. Or on the other end, take his contemporary Churchill who adopts the colonial attitude of the time and diverts food-aid away from the Bengal Famine in 1943 stating "famine or no famine, the Indians will breed like rabbits." However, even both of these need to be taken into context; Hitlers love for his countrymen came second to his hatred which ultimately cost millions of lives. Conversely, Churchill did not cause the Bengal Famine and he was forced to make a difficult choice during wartime; choosing humanitarian aid over defence of his own nation may have turned the tide of war and cost millions more lives. I attempt to make no stance either way but simply to keep in mind that they are human. Humans are flawed, scared, ignorant, racist and hateful beings but also are courageous, intelligent, generous, kind and selfless.

The most inspiring story I have come across that makes me believe in humanity is the story of Denmark during World War II. Having little defence against the Nazi War Machine, they quickly fell and were occupied. They began a quiet resistance and before the wars end were able to evacuate the majority of their Jewish population at great cost to themselves. The fact that a neutral country facing obliteration at the hands of a nation which they cannot defend themselves effectively against was able to hold off the Nazi's just long enough to evacuate their neighbours to safety is incredibly inspiring.

Sources: Lidegaard, Bo. Countrymen. (2013) MacMillian, Margaret. The War That Ended Peace. (2013)

While I only minored in history in college, I think what really struck me was events like the Taiping rebellion. If you're not familiar here's a great book on it:

http://www.amazon.com/Gods-Chinese-Son-Taiping-Heavenly/dp/0393315568/ref=pd_sim_sbs_b_1?ie=UTF8&refRID=0FCNDFYSSHHGTDQ0495G

Religion can be a very interesting and powerful force. Who could imagine that a Christian revolt could have occurred after missionaries began distributing material to China. In which a man had visions in which he claimed to be Jesus's younger brother. Absolutely fascinating.

In addition to this, history shows us that religion can often be a result of culture. If I was born in another time and / or place, how would my beliefs be radically different? It is human nature to become heavily influenced by our place of origin and its culture. Its impact on our lives is difficult to grasp.

No matter how much more I've learned, my fundamental belief in human nature has remained unchanged. It's an interesting question.

Personally, I believe humans are inherently good, and that any person whose motives seem so evil I cannot comprehend or change them, are being affected by something else. Whether that's trauma, a conglomerate of experience, etc., that's how I view people (excepting those with serious mental illness that leads to that trauma). History has not changed this point of view. I still see human beings as inherently good, even studying conflicts as emotionally charged as the Israel-Palestine conflict, but it's definitely an interesting question to consider.

Edit: I may be a completely strange person, considering. I've had to learn, in addition to things about Israel-Palestine, the Rwandan genocide, the Nuremberg Trials and Holocaust, and the Bosnian genocide, in pretty extensive amount. I don't know how I haven't changed my views, but I guess I'm either a blind optimist or see things from a lens that provides reasons for why they are how they are that aren't tied to the inherent nature of the person committing the acts.

Hmmm. I've looked in some depth at the Mongols who have a deservedly bloodthirsty reputation. While their reputation has certainly been exaggerated in some ways the amount of misery and destruction they caused is incredible. That said this has not lead me to condemn them as evil, or seeing people as inherently evil. I see people reacting to stimuli and environment. So while I may condemn the actions as evil I do not view the Mongols, or even Genghis Khan, as evil. I see them as people of their time and place. Their environment and culture shaped them in a certain way so that their actions appeared natural to them, and to condemn them for these factors is unfair. Much the same goes for most humanity in my opinion.

I hope the mods will allow the discussion. I think it's a fascinating question, but not necessarily from a historical perspective but rather from a viewpoint of evolutionary biology.

Let's pick a trait typically associated with good, like being brave. A brave man is willing to sacrifice himself to save others, and as a result is eventually removed from the gene pool.

You will also have situations where those who are vicious and scheming may survive, while those who are overly trusting in others may not...unless they are able to build communities and defend themselves as a whole. I think that might be an interesting historical angle to pursue; small, peaceful communities throughout the history of mankind that have survived (or not survived) against larger more aggressive forces.

My view of human nature, which is shaped in no small part by my study of history, is that humanity as a whole is a muddling lot. It rarely accomplishes its best, it rarely accomplishes its worst. Most of the time everything sort of muddles along, never as good as it could be, never as bad as it could be. It is both a depressing and consoling vision. We will probably never achieve that great utopia, that great state of maximized happiness for everyone (and no, I don't think high technology is going to save us). We instead will have periods of broad bettering or worsening, punctuated occasionally by acts of inspiring courage and acts of ruinous terror that keep people thinking that it always has to be one way or the other. And eventually, in what will probably be a blink of an eye for geologic time, we will all go extinct.

Whenever I tell people that I study history, they think it's just some dusty book in some boring and irrelevant topic. What they don't realize that it's typically a dusty book teaching the reader incredibly relevant things through a story that happens to be factual. (Or at least as factual as we can get the narrative).

What history has taught me, above all, is perspective. Perspective on nearly anyone's walks of life, what their traditions are, why they're important, etc. I can understand where nearly anyone is coming from because I know the history behind their culture. The cyclical nature of history helps this as well. All of this allows me to anticipate what types of people are going to do and why, a skill invaluable in daily life.

As for human nature, it just shows that we tend to act and react in similar fashion to certain events as we always have. There's a definite continuity to history.

"Good" and "bad" are value judgements created by humans. They're just abstract concepts that have changed throughout history. Something seen as "bad" now, slavery for example, was seen as perfectly normal by most humans in the not too distant past. Things we think of as perfectly normal today might be seen as "bad" by future humans. So it goes.

Studying history has taught me that humans are humans. There are smart humans and stupid humans, and sometimes even smart humans do stupid things.

For myself, it has forced me to see the other side of the coin, to see not only the image given to me by those around me, but to seek out what the other side sees. In debates I have with friends and colleagues, I more often than not choose to play Devil's Advocate, because I do know quite a bit more than they do on certain subjects and want them to see that side as well.

I am in the military, and the amount of hatred people from the Middle East get from certain individuals I've met is mind blowing. They only see the side the American media has given them, and are ignorant (some by choice, others by chance, some both) of their perspective on things.

It has also effected my views on religion, not that I was religious before I began to really study history, but it has had an effect, but that's another topic.

I think this question should be deleted, although, considering how the mods have engaged already, I know I piss into the wind here. It's a poll, it's subjective, and, frankly, I think the entire premise of the question is flawed and attempts to constrict respondents into casting the inquirer's biases onto the topic. Edit: I disagree that this constitutes a legitimate historiographical inquiry, it is too weighted a question.

It has enhanced/strengthened my belief that people are what they are, some good, some bad, human nature hasn't changed, only technology.
Not just tech, also tradition. Traditions/philosophies have a way of amplifying over time. Once "the way it's done" is locked in, change can be difficult and that difficulty is magnified by size. At the very core, there has always been a small percentage of horrible people and a bunch of good people. There have always been people who want more from doing less, there have always been kind people who give more than they take. There have always been people who wax nostalgic for the way things were, there have always been people who work for change.

Those who study history are doomed to watch others repeat it,

Or in other words, cultures change; ideologies change; technologies change; people do not change.