Okay, I've thought about this before and have a weird way about reasoning through this:
I don't think there's any real objective definition of good and bad.
I think that, at the very least, for a society to be successful and not self-destruct, it must possess mechanisms by which its members are socialized into behaving in non-dysfunctional ways.
Many of these "non-dysfunctional" values seem to be universal (e.g. don't kill everyone). Whether or not they're human nature is a question I'm not willing to come to any conclusion on. They may very well be, but, as I said above, at the very least most people are socialized to have them.
But since something like "don't kill people" ** seems pretty universal, aside from a few dysfunctional serial killers, it would appear that, by and large, a human trait is that we don't like to kill one another recklessly; and even if it's not an innate attitude, it is a value ubiquitous enough that it might as well be.
So I even though I technically don't believe in any objective definition of good or bad, I purposely limit myself to a framework of "What sorts of behavior would destroy society?" and evaluate good/bad as what I think is universally required for societies to persist. I do this for practical reasons; I think anything beyond that framework, frankly, is pedantic and a waste of time.
And yes, I think these "good" qualities are, at the very least, socialized into most people; and, at the very most, are human nature.
So I voted that (most) people are basically good. Sort of.
** Things like war are a major discrepancy here; but war is usually justified internally within a society as vital for its self-preservation, so I don't really see a contradiction. On the other hand, I'm not prepared to say that the willingness to kill over ridiculous tribal divisions (no matter how sophisticated they've become) is a value that's universally required for a society to function, so I don't think wars are necessarily moral. Thus, otherwise good people do bad things, etc.