Some people are good and some are bad, although deciding the degree of this can be subjective. I don't know if you can think of good/bad in a strictly objective and black/white way. Also classifying them as "inherently" good or bad can be tricky I think.
Being "bad" could simply be a result of the reptilian part of our brain which controls survival instincts, aggression, and the most basic of emotions, dominating our behavior. Whereas those that are "good" have more limbic (to some extent, since unproductive yet "advanced" emotions like jealousy can lead to bad behavior) and neocortical control over their behavior.
So if this were the case you could argue that all people are inherently bad due to the selfish primitive aspects of the brain that is inherent in all of us, but that we have evolved an ability to be good at times by integrating our mammalian emotions with our human thoughts. In some people, this higher level of control is strong and you can probably classify them as "good" like Ghandi and Mother Teresa, although you could argue they are inherently bad but good at controlling it. In some people this control is almost nonexistent, and here you have simply evil people.
Anything in between involves a tug of war between our old and new brain. So for these people, you would just have the weigh the good vs bad in their actions (and theoretically thoughts if you think that is equally important for purity). And it would depend on what weights you give good and bad deeds which complicates matters. I for one count bad actions much more strongly than good.
Maybe all reptiles are bad (if that even means anything), humans can be good or bad depending on brain wiring and conditioning through genetics and environmental factors, and a possible future evolutionarily advanced race of humans can be purely good in nature which would be hard to imagine and would make it tough for them to have been able to survive natural selection in the first place