Bertrand Russel, not a religious man by any means, said that "It's in our hearts that the evil lies, and from our hearts it must be plucked out."
Einstein said it's easier to denature plutonium than to denature the evil spirit of man.
Whether we humans are inclined towards evil, or we are inclined towards good but become corrupted, the end result is the same.
"black hearted" evil is rare enough. Rampant justification of actions that serve self-interest is a little less rare.
Darwin said "survival of it fittest", but it's closer to "survival of the fit enough", which means not one, but a plethora of options are available for survival. Some of the options that allow survival are considered evil by a portion of society, some of the options that allow survival are considered good by portions of society.
We like to think of evil and good as ideas that can be erased or gotten rid of, but that is just unrealistic idealisms. Evil and good are just the outcome of acts. We, as a society can reduce the potential for some kinds of acts, but we cannot get rid of said acts we consider evil simply because they can be spontaneously discovered.
Humans do have a propensity towards evil.
Humans also have a propensity towards good.
This is because humans are the most able being in our known universe. Our potential is almost unlimited.
Perhaps, but not in the sense that this...
> Given that humans are by our biology and history a social and cooperative species, it stands to reason that humans have a propensity towards "good" instead.
...is a mutually exclusive alternative. In fact, I think most Catholic and mainstream Protestant theologians would agree with you that humans have an inmate propensity for good.
Given that humans are by our biology and history a social and cooperative species, it stands to reason that humans have a propensity towards "good" instead.
And I've updated my post to put good in quotation marks because obvious good and evil are not exactly objective truths either.