“When discussing human nature people seem to start with good and evil. Human nature isn’t the battle between good and evil; it is the instincts people are born with. What defines good and evil is based on the experiences people have during their lives. People confuse human nature and life experiences. How people are brought up makes them good or evil, not human nature. Although human nature isn’t good or evil there are forces in both nature and nurture that affect how a person will turnout. Good and evil is the product of nurture not nature.
The good or evil in a person is not a matter of nature but rather, of nurture. Many evil people can be traced to bad upbringings and a poor environment as a child that causes their evil tendencies. Human nature deals with factors all humans and animals are born with. Instincts make up human nature. People often confuse good and evil as human nature, but it is nurture and the environment people are brought up in that makes them good or evil.”
I think your thesis is very clear. However, your intro and conclusion are repetitive and a bit casual. Aviod contractions (i.e “don’t”) It is not very evident here, and most likely is in the meat of the paper, but what exactly is your definition of instincts? How do people confuse human nature and life experience? Does human nature not define how an experience is perceived? Are humans completely instinctual or do they overcome their instincts? Are instincts involved in human nature, or completely separate from each other? I’m just asking these question in case you were having problems with the length of your paper. I think they will all allow the reader to understand more, but perhaps you already answer these in your paper. Okay, well good luck!
