I can only offer my subjective opinion of course, but I see this question in a different light from how I imagine it's asked. I don't believe in objective categories of "good" and "evil"; I personally consider them subjective labels arising from an instinctive desire to categorize between "pleasing/useful" and "destructive/dangerous/painful". I think the question of "which are we more, good or evil?" is actually about a desire to make sense of two strongly conflicting aspects of the human psyche in tension with one another.
I describe Humans as clan-based, highly social and interdependent while also wary of neighbours and strangers. They're uncomfortable alone but have a strong need to protect "their" personal space from intruders. It's a constant balance for most of them, between "I" and "we", and this is made more complicated by the capacity for intellectual decision making. One thing I've noticed about humans (mostly because I don't seem to personally share it) is a tendency (when you meet with them in person) to assert themselves, to "push into" a space. They seem to instinctively "colonise" any place they enter, staking a claim. A race of conquerors - and I don't necessarily mean violence or anything unpleasant there at all, just the unthinking behaviour of asserting the self outward. That's certainly not a condemnation, merely a neutral observation. And yet despite this, most humans also seek to diminish the self through alleigence, identification. They persue identification with a group, afraid to stand out while equally afraid that they'll be diminished through the surrender. And most, unless they’re top of the hierarchy, deal with the conflicting urges to “belong” and “assert” by yoking their self-identity to a group identity, acting as enforcers for a shared ideology or viewpoint, or another person. Not aggressive as such, just extremely committed, without really thinking about it, to making any space they enter comfortably
theirs.
I'd also say that humans are
extremely empathic (to the extent that those few who aren't (sociopaths) are marked as aberrations). Humans are instinctively social and don’t easily draw a distinction between the self and other humans, and this is in strong conflict with their heightened sapient intellect (
great awareness of self) and the afore-mentioned need to preserve their personal space, physically and ideologically. Hence, humans are defensive a lot, fearful. They always have a sense of the social group – a longing, a craving, for it - yet it also represents an imposition on their selfhood (which due to our sapience is pronounced). So there’s a real internal tension there, instinct arising from our social nature (and group identification/survival of the group) conflicting with selfhood (survival of the individual, boosted by sapient awareness). Take the instinct for aggression (again, doesn’t necessarily mean violence, just assertion – that “conqueror” instinct), and it can bond with the survival/defence instinct and lash out down the social network to the other human, the instinctive empathic connection that most people can’t escape. And “evil” results.
What I mean is, Humans have a strong tendency to equate the self with the group - to affiliate, to identify, to subordinate the self to a larger party while also retaining a sense of ambition to move up in the hierarchy. They also tend to equate the self with the other a lot, hence personal feuds and grudges. A tendency to identify empathically with others and expect others to share their concerns in turn - hence humans' tendency to help others who are hurt or in need, to feel the pain of others, or to seek "balance" for their pain through vengeance or harm inflicted on others. Comforting an upset child and (say) harming a child out of a desire to "punish" its parents are, I think, essentially the same instinct, just channelled in different ways (no doubt correlating to many people's ideas of "good" and "evil").
Most of what other people categorize as "good" or "evil" I see as different means of dealing with the same internal tensions and dilemmas - only some are productive, others destructive. And we are all, I believe, seeking balance, which I always suspect is an outgrowth of our empathy, a need to keep the self and the group, the self-service and the group-service in balance. When we are hurt or angry, we feel the need for some sort of reparation, some sort of balancing of the scales, however that manifests. Indeed, the very question "are we good, evil, or neutral?" reflects this search for an equilibrium, defining yourself in terms of a point that feels most satisfying to both instinctive urges - I, serving and protecting me, and I, serving the group and others. With a race as social and dependent as humans, the second is almost as powerful as the first; how do we keep the two resting against each other and not conflicting?
I'd say Humans are not "good" or "evil" or "neutral", they're just spiritual, intellectual creatures trying to balance a sense of their own intellect and spirit with their animal bodies and attendant instincts.
Sometimes the path they choose in that leads to harm, to themselves and others (and sometimes refusal to confront the problem does too), other times to beneficial results for all.
