(1) nurtures its own, (2) protects its own against danger, (3) feels a sense of conectedness to its own
While I agree with this observation, I'm afraid your conclusion you draw from it is flawed (that it means we are 'good').
The simple problem is in the definition of 'its own' and the definition of 'danger'. As in 'protects its own against danger'.
If I come to the conclusion that human beings are a danger to my life, and I proceed to kill as many as I can find, am I still 'good'? Hardly! If I am born into a poverty-stricken drug addicted family, and begin pushing drugs to make enough money to live, and I still 'good'? Don't think so.
It's most correct, I think, to say humans are born selfish - either of themselves or their family or their society (hence patriotism being so common). Whether that results in 'good' or 'bad' behaviour is up to their parents and 'neighborhood' to determine.
Yeah I have read some of John Locke in philosophy class and didn''t Jefferson use his philosophy to an extent in the draft of the ORIGINAL constitution?
Another perspective that is of interest is Abraham Maslow, I read about him in psychology. He originated the philosophy of Humanistic psychology (officially anyway)
tho I agree with points in all of the psychological viewpoints and all of none if I had to pick one to go with it would be his.
"Human nature is seen as innately good, and people are assumed to have a natuarel tendency toward growth and the realization of their fullest potential. Ther humanists largely deny a dark or evil side of human nature. They do not believe that we are shaped strictly by the environment or ruled by mysterious unconscious (I add spiritual) forces. Rather, as creative beings with an active, conscious free will, we can chart our own course in life". The World of Psychology. Ellen R. Greenwood, Samuel E. Wood. 4th ed. Allyn and Bacon 1993
