That is an odd conception of free will you have going there. I have coffee every morning because I like coffee in the morning, but I could have tea; I have the freedom to change, but I do not. If God is good then he chooses not to do evil, but that doesn't make him unfree. — unenlightened

Then why couldn't humans be the same way? I'm not saying we shouldn't be free to choose coffee over tea, I'm saying we shouldn't be free to poison the coffee and give that to our neighbor. And society agrees, which is why there are laws against murder.

You mean we make it up. — unenlightened

Only if God is not real.

why couldn't humans be the same way? — Marchesk

They could. In fact, if you will excuse the boasting, I myself have never chosen to poison my neighbour.

Only if God is not real. — aletheist

Not so. God can be real but inaccessible.

Since you will not answer, I will suggest that experience is the only guide, and experience is only of creation. In which case one might well ascertain that God likes increasing chaos, beings that eat each other and widespread suffering. In which case that must be good. A conclusion that many a religious terrorist seems to have come to.

God can be real but inaccessible. — unenlightened

I almost included that caveat myself, but I share Peirce's view that there is no good reason to posit anything as real that is inaccessible or unknowable in principle. His definition of "real" at the third (pragmatic) grade of clarity is that which would come be known, if an infinite community of investigators were to carry out an indefinite inquiry.

I will suggest that experience is the only guide, and experience is only of creation. — unenlightened

That would be natural theology. Of course, many theists also subscribe to revealed theology, and thus contend that it is possible to experience God directly.

In which case one might well ascertain that God likes increasing chaos, beings that eat each other and widespread suffering. In which case that must be good. — unenlightened

This would be the mistake of theological determinism, which assumes that everything that actually happens must be in accordance with the will of God. But if God granted libertarian free will to humans, then He enabled us to make choices that are not in accordance with His will; and He also allowed the consequences that followed from those choices - including chaos, carnivorism, and suffering, at least according to the traditional Christian doctrine of the Fall.

Of course, many theists also subscribe to revealed theology, and thus contend that it is possible to experience God directly. — aletheist

Indeed. But it is hard to tell the difference between God's revelation, and my intuition, either from my own point of view or from another's. In which case Peirce would presumably tell us that they are the same thing. Which suits me just fine because my intuition has fairly clear and conventional ideas about what is good, and if God has other ideas, then we are on opposing sides.

As should be clear by now, the meaning/definition of "good" is "whatever is consistent with God's nature," — aletheist

So when we say that omnipotence (or kindness, say) is good we're just saying that omnipotence (or kindness) is consistent with God's nature?

which accords with saying that "we ascertain what God is like and then define 'good' accordingly."

This doesn't make sense. If we've already defined "good" as "consistent with God's nature" then we don't need to ascertain what God is like before we "define 'good' accordingly". It's already been defined.

Evil is behaving selfishly, harming others, manipulating them, exploiting them, discriminating against them, causing them to suffer, etc. — Marchesk

In the traditional Christian conception of good, such things are not evil. That's why forgiving is central to that religion. As I said in the other post, any freely willed human act, being intentional, is an act toward some good. Therefore good is of the essence of the human act, and no degree of mistakenness can remove this essence, these acts will all be defined by the good which is sought by them. You call these acts "evil", but it is simply the case that the people who carry out these acts are seeking a good which is not consistent with the good which you are seeking.

Are you really suggesting that human beings can't tell good from bad, in general? Do we not grow up being told the difference, and enforcing the difference amongst ourselves, and teaching our kids likewise? — Marchesk

What I am suggesting is that most human beings do not know how "good" is defined in indifferent theologies. Sure, the average person may be taught by their parents to distinguish good from bad, right from wrong, correct from incorrect, but these are principles based in human convention. We are taught what is correct and incorrect according to the various conventions. Christian theologians are not taught that there is a difference between good and bad, they are taught to understand a difference between the apparent good, and the real good. There is no "bad" here, because the apparent good is what appears good to the individual, and inspires the free act, while the real good is the good according to God. We cannot say, that because the good chosen by an individual, (the apparent good), is not exactly the same as the decision which God would make (the real good), that the apparent good is therefore bad. The individual may be striving to determine the real good, yet simply not act in the absolutely best way in the situation. Failing to act in the absolutely best way does not make an act bad.

Maybe the problem is not with these religious notions about God, but rather involves our how our conception of what's good is possible. The term 'good' losses its meaning without the concept/experience of 'evil', they co-implicate each other. Imagine that you were in a world where only good could possibly happen, if so then what's good would be the way things are, it would have no differential — Cavacava

In the Christian ethical principles, as I understand them, there is no opposite to 'good", such as "bad". Good is not defined by an opposing term. Good is defined by the concepts of intention and free will. The end of an intentional act is the good which is sought by the person acting. There is no opposite to this. One can choose not to act, or a different act, but these are just different choices, and therefore different goods, not an opposite. In theology they assume an objective good, the real good, which is roughly defined as what God would choose in that situation, the absolute best thing to do in any given situation. But the fact that an individual human being doesn't choose the best action in a given situation, doesn't remove "good" from the act, making it the opposite, not-good, it just makes it less than perfect.

As should be clear by now, the meaning/definition of "good" is "whatever is consistent with God's nature," which accords with saying that "we ascertain what God is like and then define 'good' accordingly." — aletheist

I don't think theologians define "good" as what's consistent with God's nature, rather it is defined as what's consistent with God's will. They assume that in each situation where a decision must be made, there is an absolute best decision, the one which God would make. As human beings, it is our duty to God, to attempt to the extent of our capacity, to determine this best decision. Failing to determine the best choice does not make one's choice evil, as Marchesk seems to be arguing.

Which suits me just fine because my intuition has fairly clear and conventional ideas about what is good, and if God has other ideas, then we are on opposing sides. — unenlightened

I think it is a mistake to assume "opposing sides". This what creates the problem of evil, assuming that there is an opposite to good. Good is defined by what is intended, the end which is sought. There is no opposite to this "object", just different objects. So whatever appears good to me is not exactly the same as what appears good to you, and this is not exactly the same as the good according to God. These are all differences, but they are not really opposing differences, as they are all inherently goods. If we represent them as opposing, then we assume a certain separation which implies the impossibility of reconciliation. We deny ourselves the capacity for understanding the other's intent, by designating it as evil, because the intent to do evil is irrational and cannot be understood. So we must allow that the other's actions are guided by some good, it is just inconsistent with our good. There is a need for reconciliation, not a designation of opposing sides.

In the traditional Christian conception of good, such things are not evil. — Metaphysician Undercover

Which Christian tradition do you have in mind? On the contrary, I think that most Christians would characterize "behaving selfishly, harming others, manipulating them, exploiting them, discriminating against them, causing them to suffer, etc." as evil (i.e., sinful).

I don't think theologians define "good" as what's consistent with God's nature, rather it is defined as what's consistent with God's will. — Metaphysician Undercover

You are painting with a very broad brush, treating "theologians" as a monolithic class. Some define good as what is consistent with God's nature, others as what is consistent with God's will (and others as something else). In my case, there is no distinction between the two, since God only wills that which is consistent with His nature.

Failing to determine the best choice does not make one's choice evil, as Marchesk seems to be arguing. — Metaphysician Undercover

You seem to have a highly unusual understanding of Christian doctrine. Any action that is in any way inconsistent with God's nature - or God's will, if you prefer - is sin, and therefore evil.

Which Christian tradition do you have in mind? On the contrary, I think that most Christians would characterize "behaving selfishly, harming others, manipulating them, exploiting them, discriminating against them, causing them to suffer, etc." as evil (i.e., sinful). — aletheist

I think you need to differentiate between sin and evil.

You seem to have a highly unusual understanding of Christian doctrine. Any action that is in any way inconsistent with God's nature - or God's will, if you prefer - is sin, and therefore evil. — aletheist

I've studied some of the greatest Christian theologians, such as St Augustine, and St. Thomas, along with other material taught to me in moral philosophy in university. So I really do not think that my understanding is so "unusual". Were you taught that there is a difference between the real good, and the apparent good? This is fundamental to Aquinas, a principle which he draws from Aristotle.

If, what is consistent with God's will, or God's nature, is the real good, and what is consistent with an individual human being's will, or nature, is the apparent good, then how could a human being's apparent good be the same as God's real good, unless that human being knows what God knows? Just because we, as human beings do not know what God knows, and therefore we do not choose the very same actions as God would choose (the absolute best course of action), in any particular situation, this does not make us evil, or even necessarily sinful. But it does make our actions inconsistent with God's will. And you argue that to be inconsistent with God's will is necessarily sinful, and even evil. No human being can choose the absolute best action, and therefore no human being's actions are truly consistent with God's will, even though our actions are good. We do sin sometimes, but sinning is mistaken actions, and so long as we recognize our mistakes as mistakes, we may be forgiven.

I think you need to differentiate between sin and evil. — Metaphysician Undercover

All sin is evil. Do you disagree?

And you argue that to be inconsistent with God's will is necessarily sinful, and even evil. — Metaphysician Undercover

I argue that to be inconsistent with God's nature is necessarily sinful, and therefore evil; and again, God does not will anything contrary to His own nature.

No human being can choose the absolute best action, and therefore no human being's actions are truly consistent with God's will, even though our actions are good. — Metaphysician Undercover

This is contradictory, in my view; any action that is inconsistent with God's will cannot be good. Indeed, no human being is capable of living 100% consistently with God's will: "The Lord looks down from heaven on the children of man, to see if there are any who understand, who seek after God. They have all turned aside; together they have become corrupt; there is none who does good, not even one." (Psalm 14:2-3)

We do sin sometimes, but sinning is mistaken actions, and so long as we recognize our mistakes as mistakes, we may be forgiven. — Metaphysician Undercover

Sinning is not just mistaken actions; often we sin quite deliberately, with full awareness that what we are doing is wrong. We are forgiven not because we recognize our mistakes as mistakes, but because we recognize our wickedness as wickedness, and throw ourselves upon the mercy of God: "... for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus ..." (Romans 3:23-24)

All sin is evil. Do you disagree? — aletheist

Yes, I disagree, I think that "evil" is a stronger word than sin, signifying a greater transgression. I think if we ask many of the same questions of "evil', and of "sin", we will come up with different answers, signifying a difference between them. For example, if we ask of sin and of evil, are they forgivable, the answer is likely that sin is forgivable, but evil is not.

I argue that to be inconsistent with God's nature is necessarily sinful, and therefore evil; and again, God does not will anything contrary to His own nature. — aletheist

But a human being cannot act like God, therefore a human being's actions are inconsistent with the nature of God. According to your argument then, a human being's actions are necessarily sinful and evil. What's the point in holding such a believe which makes all human beings necessarily evil, because it is impossible for a human being to be as God?

This is contradictory, in my view; any action that is inconsistent with God's will cannot be good. Indeed, no human being is capable of living 100% consistently with God's will: "The Lord looks down from heaven on the children of man, to see if there are any who understand, who seek after God. They have all turned aside; together they have become corrupt; there is none who does good, not even one." (Psalm 14:2-3) — aletheist

See, you admit that no human being can be 100% consistent with God. Therefore all human beings are necessarily evil, according to your argument. What's the point in saying that human beings are necessarily evil? How can that be an acceptable moral principle? Why even try to be good if it's impossible for us, and we're necessarily going to be evil anyway?

Sinning is not just mistaken actions; often we sin quite deliberately, with full awareness that what we are doing is wrong. — aletheist

It doesn't matter that the sin is deliberate and intentional, it is still mistaken action. The sinful action is inspired by some perceived (apparent) good, which inclines the individual to act that way. The mistake is in the belief that it is worthwhile to sin for the sake of this other good, which isn't a real good. It's a mistaken good.

What's the point in holding such a believe which makes all human beings necessarily evil, because it is impossible for a human being to be as God? — Metaphysician Undercover

Are you not familiar with the traditional Christian doctrines of original sin and the Fall? God created the first humans in His own image, such that they were able to live in complete accordance with His nature and will. However, they freely chose to sin instead, and the inability of their descendants (including you and me) to live in complete accordance with God's nature and will is a consequence of that.

Why even try to be good if it's impossible for us, and we're necessarily going to be evil anyway? — Metaphysician Undercover

We certainly should not "try to be good" in a vain effort to satisfy God, since His standard is perfection, and we are incapable of achieving it. However, we should "try to be good" for the sake of our fellow humans. When we fall short, we should ask for forgiveness - both from God and from our fellow humans. In fact, the greatest single need of every single human is God's forgiveness of his/her sins.

Yes, I disagree, I think that "evil" is a stronger word than sin, signifying a greater transgression. I think if we ask many of the same questions of "evil', and of "sin", we will come up with different answers, signifying a difference between them. For example, if we ask of sin and of evil, are they forgivable, the answer is likely that sin is forgivable, but evil is not. — Metaphysician Undercover

I wonder if you might agree with Maurice Nicoll, that to sin is to miss the mark, whereas evil is not even to aim for the mark?

That could be it, but I think it depends on how we would define "the mark". What I have been arguing is that to have a mark, which is aimed for, is to have an intended good, so actions which aim for a mark are inherently good. Now we can identify two types of mistakes, one is to miss the mark which is aimed for, and the other is an artificial type of mistake which is created by the assumption that the mark itself may be judged as good or not good. In the latter case, one may aim for "a mark", and achieve the goal, but the conventions of society (religions, laws, mores, etc.) may dictate that the mark was not good. So the person is guilty. And because of the supposed malintent, the guilt is of a higher level than one who makes a mistake of the first sort, which is to miss a mark which has been designated as good.

The artificial type of mistake, in order that it's a real mistake, requires a judgement of the mark. So the mark must be held up to, compared, to some principles for such a judgement. Now we have choices in judging the mark, aletheist would say God, Marchesk would look for some other principles. They are all conventions, even though "God" directs us toward something beyond the conventions. Our choice in these conventions is supposed to be very important, because it is the judgement of the mark which produces the higher level of guilt. One with bad intent is often said to be evil. If there were no such judgement as to whether the chosen mark is good or bad, we would only need to worry ourselves with the lower level guilt, which is involved with not hitting the mark.

The fact that there are competing systems for judging the mark, different conventions, is evidence that such judgements are inherently artificial, and this indicates another option to us, which is to reject such judgement of the mark, as unnatural. Now we start with the assumption that there is no outside third party judgement on the mark, no judgement by God, no judgement by human laws or mores. This leaves only the individual who is making the choice of actions as the one to judge the mark. The individual can turn to whatever conventions or reasons, one wants for choosing the mark.

Now we have no objective good or bad which can be assigned to the mark, and from this perspective, the true nature of the mark begins to come to light. The mark itself is very rarely some definite goal, it's always some fleeting thing in the background. If you stop yourself for a minute and ask why am I doing this, there is very rarely a clear, obvious answer, just many odd goals in the background of your daily activities. This is why the mark is extremely difficult to actually hit. It's just some vague, ill-defined, moving, changing target.

So true, real mistakes, are mistakes in hitting the mark, but the issue is that the mark is not very evident to us. The norms of our society, and conventional wisdom has directed us toward thinking that our intentions, "the mark", can be judged as good or bad, according to some big principles, like God, or whatever ethical standards, and laws which are held, but really our intentions are just some vague forms lurking in the background, which we cannot even recognize, isolate, and identify.

And this is where I would probably be in agreement with Nicoll, what is needed is to focus our attention on the mark, identify it, and bring it into view, before we can even have a hope of hitting it. Without this, we are just aiming at shadows, something moves and we shoot at it. Others will judge us as having bad intentions, but what makes the intention "good" in the eyes of others, is that it is well defined and intelligible. So if "evil is not even to aim for the mark", this is because the mark has not been recognized, or identified. It is like shooting into the dark. To bring the mark into the light is to bring out the good.

Are you not familiar with the traditional Christian doctrines of original sin and the Fall? God created the first humans in His own image, such that they were able to live in complete accordance with His nature and will. However, they freely chose to sin instead, and the inability of their descendants (including you and me) to live in complete accordance with God's nature and will is a consequence of that. — aletheist

Our position is a consequence of original sin, but it should not make us, ourselves, sinners. The original sin, and fall, are sins of others, and we may learn from their mistakes. Your position makes us all sinners because of the original sin. That's what I think is a mistake.

Your position makes us all sinners because of the original sin. — Metaphysician Undercover

That is precisely what the doctrine of original sin teaches. We commit individual sins (our actions) because our human nature is corrupted by original sin (our condition).

But here's the point. Because we are bound to make mistakes, i.e. sin, does this mean that human beings are inherently evil? I think not, I think that our actions are inherently good, but we make mistakes. You seem to think that the original sin has made us into evil beings, such that our actions are sins.

I think Aletheist is correct, he's simply pointing out the Christian doctrine of 'original sin'. You're free not to accept it of course, but that is what the doctrine says. (You might find it interesting that maverick theologian Matthew Fox was expelled from the Dominican Order in 1988 for denying the doctrine of original sin in his publication of a book called Original Blessing.)

I simply interpret it differently than Aletheist, and I believe it's a more Christian way of interpretation. The Old Testament might lead you to believe that the original sin has rendered us all as evil, but Christian theology teaches that God is forgiving, and sinning does not render us as evil, because we can be forgiven. Jesus sacrificed himself in order that we may be forgiven for our sins. Within the concept of "forgiving", we turn around the original sin, such that we no longer think of ourselves as inherently evil, but as simply less than perfect. By seeing us as inherently good, but simply mistaken in our sins, God is capable of forgiving us. Likewise, we see others as inherently good, but mistaken in their sins, so we forgive them.

The Christian principle which I draw on is the assumption that because we are less than perfect, this does not make us evil, or even bad. All existence is good, or else God would not have created it. But nothing except God himself is perfect. One need not be perfect to be good. Therefore we, as existing human beings are inherently good. Original sin is understood as a mistake which can be forgiven. Human beings are still inherently good despite the fact that we are not perfectly good.

By seeing us as inherently good, but simply mistaken in our sins, God is capable of forgiving us. Likewise, we see others as inherently good, but mistaken in their sins, so we forgive them. — Metaphysician Undercover

Fair enough.

Christian theology teaches that God is forgiving, and sinning does not render us as evil, because we can be forgiven. — Metaphysician Undercover

Christian theology teaches that sin does render us as evil. If we were not evil, then there would be no need for us to be forgiven - i.e., no need for Jesus to die on the cross in order to make our forgiveness possible.

Human beings are still inherently good despite the fact that we are not perfectly good. — Metaphysician Undercover

Not according to Jesus Himself.

• "You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect." (Matthew 5:48)
• "If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him!" (Matthew 7:11, cf. Luke 11:13)
• "For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person." (Mark 7:21-23)
• "Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone." (Mark 10:18, Luke 18:19)
• "And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil." (John 3:19)
• "The world cannot hate you, but it hates me because I testify about it that its works are evil." (John 7:7)

I don't see the point in posting a bunch of out of context quotes.

Christian theology teaches that sin does render us as evil. If we were not evil, then there would be no need for us to be forgiven - i.e., no need for Jesus to die on the cross in order to make our forgiveness possible. — aletheist

Here's a question for you then. If only God is good, as your quote from the Bible claims, and sin renders us evil, as you claim, where does forgiveness leave us? Are we still evil after being forgiven? If only God is good, then it must be the case that we are always evil, even after being forgiven. What's the point in forgiveness then, what does it do for us?

...no need for Jesus to die on the cross in order to make our forgiveness possible. — aletheist

According to your claims, there is no forgiveness. If we are still evil, in God's eyes, after being forgiven, then we aren't really forgiven, are we? You have no idea what forgive means, do you?

We deny ourselves the capacity for understanding the other's intent, by designating it as evil, because the intent to do evil is irrational and cannot be understood. So we must allow that the other's actions are guided by some good, it is just inconsistent with our good. There is a need for reconciliation, not a designation of opposing sides. — Metaphysician Undercover

I think we are irrational. And this understanding allows me to understand evil intent. I agree with you in one sense, but it becomes an abuse of language; man with sword intends to kill, man with scalpel intends to preserve life. These cannot be reconciled. A man thinks it is good to kill random passers by with a vehicle to promote a cause and the right understanding of God - that man has it wrong. And so does the man who thinks it is good to do the same thing in a jet plane in a foreign land in the name of democracy. To fight a war against terror is about as rational as curing the fear of heights by throwing folks off a cliff.

To bring the mark into the light is to bring out the good. — Metaphysician Undercover

I'd like to try and do that a little. The mark, the target of one's moral action is the beam in one's own eye, not the mote in another's. It is convenient to think that if the rest of the world was peaceful and loving, then I would follow them naturally, and so to try and reform the world. And so we have the endless cycle of violence to impose peace on each other. It is the other way round; if I could end the violence in myself, then there would be peace in the world.

The mark, the target of one's moral action is the beam in one's own eye, not the mote in another's. — unenlightened

This is what Aquinas would call the apparent good, the target of one's moral actions. He also assumes a real good, and the real good is often inconsistent with the apparent good, and so we sin. I cannot justify the claim that you are wrong in your action, simply by appealing to what appears good to me, because then we would just have inconsistent apparent goods. So I must turn to some conventions, mores, laws, or even the word of God, to argue that your action is not consistent with the real good.

I think we are irrational. And this understanding allows me to understand evil intent. I agree with you in one sense, but it becomes an abuse of language; man with sword intends to kill, man with scalpel intends to preserve life. These cannot be reconciled. A man thinks it is good to kill random passers by with a vehicle to promote a cause and the right understanding of God - that man has it wrong. And so does the man who thinks it is good to do the same thing in a jet plane in a foreign land in the name of democracy. To fight a war against terror is about as rational as curing the fear of heights by throwing folks off a cliff. — unenlightened

I think, that what you call "irrational" here, is an inconsistency between different conceptions of the real good. The average sinner would think I know it is wrong what I am doing, but rationalize the situation in some way, to make the wrong act necessary. This sinner will recognize the conventional good, what I've called the real good, but still find reason to dismiss the real good in favour of the contrary apparent good, and therefore act in an immoral or illegal way. The terrorist, who claims to act by the word of God, appeals to a misconstrued real good. That person might believe oneself to be carrying out the true real good.

In that case, we have a rejection of most conventional interpretations of the real good, based in laws and fundamental moral principles, in favour of a direct communion with God. You could argue that this is irrational, to claim direct instructions from God, as inspiration for one's moral actions, but really it is no different from any other apparent good. The individual has a personal reason for dismissing the real good (good by convention), for a personal good. An atheist might assume the "real good" is to fight a war against religion inspired terror. In these cases though, the person is completely unaccepting of the real good (good by convention), not just dismissing it in this or that circumstance, but dismissing it in an absolute way. The person believes conventional good is incorrect, and must be dismissed. That person has come to conceive of a real good which is completely inconsistent with the accepted real good.

What we call "irrational" is those who don't think in the same way that we do. They don't follow the same principles of reason that we follow, so we designate them as irrational. But these principles are all conventions. If your society is filled with various conventions which are inconsistent with one another, where can you turn, other than your own mind, to find consistency? But once you turn to your own mind to find consistency in principles of reason, you've already dismissed the conventions, and your own mind can be a dark and scary place.

I don't see the point in posting a bunch of out of context quotes. — Metaphysician Undercover

The point is that Jesus clearly taught that human beings since the Fall are not inherently good, contrary to your position. I did not think that it would be appropriate to post the entire context of each quote; I provided the citations so that you can look up the passages yourself if you are so inclined. I also stuck to statements of Jesus Himself; the list would be much longer if I had included the entire New Testament.

If only God is good, as your quote from the Bible claims, and sin renders us evil, as you claim, where does forgiveness leave us? — Metaphysician Undercover

Forgiven, obviously - restored to a right relationship with God, despite our sin and evil. If we were inherently good, then we would not need forgiveness.

You have no idea what forgive means, do you? — Metaphysician Undercover

It is amazing how often you make comments like this that you really should be directing at yourself.

The mark, the target of one's moral action is the beam in one's own eye, not the mote in another's. — unenlightened

There is much wisdom in this.

The point is that Jesus clearly taught that human beings since the Fall are not inherently good, contrary to your position. I did not think that it would be appropriate to post the entire context of each quote; I provided the citations so that you can look up the passages yourself if you are so inclined. I also stuck to statements of Jesus Himself; the list would be much longer if I had included the entire New Testament. — aletheist

This is why you should read some theology rather than just relying on some interpretations of what Jesus said. Thomas Aquinas clearly describes what moves the human will as "the good". Also, good is equated with being, so that the human being, since it is a being, is necessarily good. Summa Theologica Q.18 Art.1:

I answer that, We must speak of good and evil in actions as of good and evil in things: because such as everything is, such is the act that it produces. Now in things , each one has so much good as it has being: since good and being are convertible, as was stated in the first part (Q.5 AA. 1,3). But God alone has the whole plenitude of His Being in a certain unity: whereas every other thing has its proper fullness of being in a certain multiplicity. Wherefore it happens with some things, that they have being in some respect, and yet they are lacking in the fullness of being due to them. Thus the fulness of human being requires a compound of soul and body, having all the powers and instruments of knowledge and movement: wherefore if any man be lacking in any of these, he is lacking in something due to the fullness of his being. So that as much as he has of being, so much has he of goodness: while so far as he is lacking in the fullness of his being, so far is he lacking in goodness, and is said to be evil: thus a blind man is possessed of goodness inasmuch as he lives; and of evil, inasmuch as he lacks sight.

...

We must therefore say that every action has goodness, in so far as it has being: whereas it is lacking in goodness, in so far as it is lacking in something that is due to its fullness of being; and thus it is said to be evil: for instance if it lacks the quantity determined by reason, or its due place, or something of the kind.

As for original sin, he describes it as an affliction of the soul itself, a deficiency within the soul. It appears to infect the will. It may be that original sin is the reason why the human soul is always united to a body, and does not exist as a separate substance. We can get redemption through Christ, and baptism removes the guilt through God's forgiveness.

You know, our argument here is not really an argument at all, because we are both correct. In as much as a human being is an existing being, one is inherently good, as I say, but to the extent that we are deficient we are all evil, as you say. We are both good and evil, good in respect to being, and evil in respect to deficiencies. I argue the glass is half full, you argue the glass is half empty.

This is why you should read some theology rather than just relying on some interpretations of what Jesus said. — Metaphysician Undercover

That seems rather uncharitable on your part. I have read a fair amount of theology, but evidently from different traditions than what you have read. I am not a Thomist, or even a Roman Catholic.

It may be that original sin is the reason why the human soul is always united to a body, and does not exist as a separate substance. — Metaphysician Undercover

Why would you suggest that? The souls of the very first humans were united to their bodies, even though they did not have original sin.

In as much as a human being is an existing being, one is inherently good, as I say, but to the extent that we are deficient we are all evil, as you say. — Metaphysician Undercover

Sure, but that involves some equivocation on what we mean by "good" and "evil." We all bear the image of God, which makes us good; but that image is corrupted in all of us, which makes us evil.