I Create False Dichotomies in My Spare Time

Is human nature a consequence of the state of the world, or is the state of the world a result of human nature?

I think that most people want to believe the former when bad things happen, (I didn't really want to do it, I was a victim of circumstance) and want to believe the latter when good things happen. (My hard work has paid off.)

But you can't have your cake and eat it too. If you want to say that terrorism is the result of extreme poverty and oppression, you cannot also say that philanthropy is a result of your own good nature.

This invariably touches on a lot of philosophically controversial subjects. Nature vs. nurture, are people intrinsically good (or bad), free will, do ethics exist objectively, etc.

If you want to be consistent, then the way you answer the question can define the majority of your personal philosophy. So most people are content with inconsistency.