So what are humans really like? Good or evil?

When we look at religion, psychology, or organizational theory, the same fundamental question keeps coming up:
Is human nature inherently problematic and in need of control—or is it fundamentally cooperative and capable of flourishing on its own under the right conditions?

These two assumptions represent two very different worldviews. They shape the way we think about morality, education, leadership, and social order. And although modern science has made progress in many areas, both models continue to coexist to this day.

Marston’s Perspective: Two Ways of Perceiving the World

In his personality model, psychologist William Moulton Marston described a fundamental dimension of perception: people tend to experience their environment as either friendly or hostile.

Those who perceive the world as dangerous or hostile often develop strategies of control and dominance. Distrust, hierarchy, and discipline then become central tools for maintaining order.

Those who, on the other hand, experience the world as friendly are more inclined toward cooperation, trust, and relationships. In such systems, motivation arises more from connection and meaning than from control.

At first glance, this distinction seems simple, but it has far-reaching consequences for social structures.

The traditional religious view of humanity

Many religious traditions—at least in their institutional forms—have historically been more strongly shaped by the first worldview. In Christianity, for example, the concept of original sin plays an important role, that is, the assumption that human beings are fundamentally prone to transgression. Similar emphases on obedience or moral discipline can also be found in other religious traditions.

The underlying assumption is often that without clear norms and a moral order, humans would tend toward destructive behavior. That is why rules, commandments, and authority are necessary.

From a historical perspective, this model is understandable. Early societies had to organize cooperation among many people who were often strangers to one another. Norms and religious systems of order helped to stabilize trust and limit conflicts.

At the same time, this model has a side effect: individuality and spontaneous self-expression are easily interpreted as potential threats.

Christianity itself has been updated: The New Testament no longer focuses on rules, but entirely on relationship and love. Change and structure follow from this worldview of love. There, the order is reversed.

Changes in Modern Psychology

In the 20th century, the scientific view of human nature began to change significantly. Earlier schools of psychology often held a rather skeptical view of human beings.

The founder of psychoanalysis, Sigmund Freud, saw powerful inner drives that needed to be socially controlled. Behaviorism, as represented by B. F. Skinner, also viewed behavior primarily as the result of conditioning and external control.

In the mid-20th century, however, a counter-movement emerged: humanistic psychology. Proponents such as Carl Rogers and Abraham Maslow assumed that humans naturally strive for growth, connection, and meaning.

According to this view, many psychological problems do not arise from a “bad nature,” but from unfavorable life conditions—such as trauma, a lack of attachment, or unmet needs.

Today, these assumptions shape many areas of modern research, such as attachment research, trauma research, and developmental psychology.

Addiction research as an example of a shift in perspective

A particularly striking example of this shift is modern addiction research.

For a long time, addiction was viewed through a moral lens: people were seen as weak-willed or lacking in character. Today, addiction is increasingly understood as an adaptive response to stressful life circumstances.

Psychologist Bruce K. Alexander became known for his “Rat Park” experiment. He demonstrated that rats in isolated cages consume drugs significantly more frequently than rats in a stimulating, social environment.

The experiment suggests that addiction often has less to do with the substance itself than with one’s life circumstances. Isolation, stress, and a lack of social connections significantly increase the risk.

This model fits much better with a worldview in which people are fundamentally oriented toward relationships and meaning.

Why both worldviews still exist today

Despite these scientific developments, the older worldview continues to shape many social institutions.

In schools, government, the military, or traditional organizational structures, the assumption that people must be controlled and managed in order to function reliably often still prevails.

At the same time, models that rely more heavily on trust and self-organization are increasingly emerging in other areas—such as in modern education, psychotherapy, or new forms of corporate organization.

The reason for this lies less in science than in the structure of institutions. Systems that assume people are dangerous or unreliable automatically justify hierarchy, control, and standardization. This stabilizes existing power structures.

A worldview that fundamentally views people as cooperative, on the other hand, tends to challenge these structures.

A very old debate

The tension between these two views of human nature is by no means new. We find it clearly expressed even in the political philosophy of the 17th and 18th centuries.

The philosopher Thomas Hobbes assumed that humans in the state of nature are prone to conflict and therefore require strong state order.

In contrast, Jean-Jacques Rousseau argued that humans are inherently good and that social structures are the root cause of many problems.

These two perspectives continue to shape political systems, education, and organizational structures to this day.

A possible interim result

Modern research increasingly tends to assume that, under favorable conditions, people act cooperatively and in a way that promotes development. Many problems arise more from social and structural factors than from an inherently “bad” human nature.

At the same time, many social institutions remain shaped by the older worldview.

Thus, both models coexist today—not only in academic debates, but also in our organizations, educational systems, and social structures.

(For more on this, see Two perspectives on the world—and little overlap)