Final answer:
The question of whether a part of our nature can be bad is complex and has been debated throughout history, with perspectives ranging from the inherently bad nature proposed by Joseph de Maistre to the idea of natural law determining morality. Dualism introduces the notion of separate material and spiritual realms, which may include 'bad' elements depending on one's worldview.
Step-by-step explanation:
Washington's argument that the "spirit" of the part is an aspect of "our nature" raises the question of whether a part of our nature can be bad. This concept touches upon the idea that humans, like animals, have inherent characteristics that define what is good for them. However, the notion of what constitutes 'good' or 'bad' in human nature has been contested throughout history.
Joseph de Maistre, a conservative French nobleman, believed that human nature is fundamentally bad, tainted by original sin and prone to depravity without the controlling forces of societal institutions. This perspective suggests that certain elements of our nature could indeed be considered 'bad' within a particular ethical framework. Conversely, other traditions argue that human nature and natural law together determine what is good or bad, insinuating that 'nature' itself is a guiding force for moral behavior.
The idea of dualism, where both matter and spirit exist as separate substances, implies that there could be 'bad' elements within the spiritual or material realms of human existence. Yet, whether this translates to contemporary issues depends on the ethical, religious, or philosophical lens through which one views human nature.