I'm not going to let you get off so lightly, lol. Of course it's rather difficult to say that we are exclusively one over the other, but don't you ever feel like one of the two happens to be more important than the other? Could you make an argument for one side - and if you feel that they seem equal, does one resonate more in you?
I see that you've mentioned that "no human is inherently good or evil", which might make my questions to you irrelevant. Would you care to expand on that further? It seems to me that you place more emphasis on the social environment in determining one's behaviour rather than human nature, but don't let me take you the wrong way :P
More important? I think that both a persons good and bad qualities should be considered when judging them, otherwise the view you get is very narrow, one-sided and inaccurate. I mean if the one time we met we argued, you'd most probably notice that I'm rather arrogant a lot of the time, I'm stubborn and that I'm argumentative. But if you got to know me you'd also notice I'm a very loyal, respectful and caring person and that those traits are usually more prevalent than the bad ones.
Which brings me to "Does one resonate more in you" - I would put it this way. I have plenty of good and bad qualities, but it is the combination of these qualities that defines who I am. I like to think that my good qualities outnumber the bad, but this doesn't mean this can't change and it doesn't mean that I am inherently a good person. I'm a good person because of the people and events that have influenced me, and whilst it is unlikely, I could just as easily become a horrible person if negative influences start to affect me more.
As for that last bit, you are correct. I most definitely place more of an emphasis on our social environment. From infancy we are bombarded by our parents actions, beliefs and values - and as soon as we pass the more animalistic stage of our development (we're food, water, warmth, health and happiness are all we care about) we start to subconciously absorb these things, we learn our first beliefs and values from observing our parental figures. Then these may change slightly as we become more social and informed as we age and more influences such as friends, teachers and even enemies come into our lives and we gain access to more information. I'm not saying that our views are simply a combination of what we learn from other people, as we grow we develop our own personal beliefs - but this is because we constantly have new information thrown at us that challenges our views. Either we "prove" that our original view is the more accurate one, or we decide that the new information is more accurate and subsequently update our beliefs. This process of continuously discovering new information and using it to adjust our own perceptions is what creates our belief systems - which depending on what we experience throughout our lives could become more "good" or "evil".
Humans are inherently evil. We've been wiping out a lot of animals to mere extinction such as dodos and Tasmanian tigers since more than a thousand years ago, declare wars against other groups due to their beliefs, enslave others to construct things, invade lands by cutting down trees to make room for our ever-growing population, and pollute our only resources to live, air and water, with our own disposals. There's a reason why extraterrestrial life and other non-human life forms from movies, comics, TV, and video games belittle us and consider us a threat. No matter how nice we are, our violent nature still hasn't been extinguished every generation, unlike wild instincts from dog breeds and pigs.
I have to disagree with this. You're describing traits that come from our natural instinct to survive, improve our quality of life and that of the human race in general - even if most of our methods of doing so are misguided they are not evil. We cut down trees to generate resources we need for our various roles within society, and we pollute our air and water for the same reasons in the same way we hunted dodo's to extinction to feed ourselves and our families good-quality food and hunted Tasmanian tigers to (probably) extinction to protect the resources we needed for looking after our families. If we had done these things solely to destroy then
that would be inherently evil. Besides, we now know a lot better (see my previous speal on development) and many of us are looking for alternate methods of generating the resources we as a society need, whilst others still seek to remedy the problems we have already caused. Why do we not all do this? Simply because we still need to fulfil the other roles society requires of us, that doesn't make us evil either it just means we have a different role to fulfil.