system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: I don't believe people are fundamentally good.

There is so much unnecessary suffering in the world. Hunger, violence, hate, war etc. The only thing stopping world peace is just for people to stop fighting each other. There is more then enough food to feed everybody, but still so many are hungry. In the western world, people will kill each other over matters that seem banal when contrasted to the fact that children are dying by the millions (six million per year). 

There is absolutely no reason for this other then that people are only good as so far it's good for them to be good. Civilization is only skin deep. Once people are really challenged, so few pas the test. We praise those who do, these unlikely heroes, precisely because we know it's not in our nature to act unselfishly. We are just animals. Though evolved to be intelligent and social, still unable to create the paradise we can all imagine. And even though we may have, as Rousseau puts it, 'the softest of hearts', our heart is still so much blacker then we like to think it is. 

Change my view.

Edit: 
There seem to be a couple of returning points that i shall address here. 

1. Saying people are not fundamentally good is not saying people are bad/evil. 
2. If we can't define what is good or bad (or define what morality is), then people can't be fundamentally good.
gpt
First of all, the world is in a far better state than ever before.  There is less war, less hunger, longer lifespans, less disease, and a higher standard of living than at any other point in human existence.  Much of this has been accomplished through goodness.

Second, the logistics of helping aren't always easy.  Many children starve in third world countries because of corrupt governments.  Food and medicine shipped their for aid gets confiscated and resold, or used by those without a need.  Should other countries go to war to depose those bad leaders?  How bad do they have to be?

Most people do act unselfishly.  If a starving African child went up to a well off person in a fancy restaurant, the vast majority of us would give up our food to help the child.  But there is a limit to how much misery we can conceive of at one time.  Should we help the starving children, or those dying of AIDS, or people dying of cancer, or the homeless or any of an endless list.  At some point, we'd be paralyzed by the enormity of the world's suffering, and curl up into a ball if we ever fully comprehended it.

But enjoying life while also helping others is not choosing evil.  If we withhold every pleasure until there is no pain in the world, we will all live very unhappy lives.  Being selfless part of the time is still a " fundamentally good" thing to do.