Exactly that, the fact that you learn it in high school. There should be no question that humans are inherently capable of great evil, it's not even a point of debate, it is a matter of fact.
But that's not really what I was talking about...
The discussion is about nature vs nurture, of course they're capable of great evil, the discussion is whether or not it's because of their nature that they do it or if society corrupts them, and that's where Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau views of the human nature collide. Hobbes believes that without a Leviathan there will always be chaos, because humans are inherently evil, not capable of evil, but evil, they need to be controled to keep order, while Rousseau believes men are inherently good, and forces of society that corrupts them, hence "the good savage", and Locke believes that humans are a blank slate, they're not inherently nothing and are completely shaped by society.
There is no definite answer, no "there should be no question", this is still a very good point to be debated, and whole political views are based around some of them, the whole reason why a lot of people don't even see Anarchy as being a valid alternative is because they too think like Hobbes that without the Leviathan, there will always be chaos, and relate Anarchy to destruction. Lack of any order whatsoever.
I can't believe you call out people on being "pseudo-intellectual" and then procceed to show that you didn't even understand what they were talking about.
