Mortals: Guilty Until Proven Innocent

 It is always correct to assume a mortal is attempting a manipulative betrayal, unless you have strong, specific, and concrete proof to the contrary. 

 Always assume malice unless malice is ruled out. 

 Even if a mortal wants to do something harmless, they will take the opportunity to lie about why they're doing it. 

 Free will doesn't produce evil without a co-morbid desire to do evil.
 Mortals consistently produce evil.
 Mortals desire evil. 

 The evil spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak. Darwin, and typically only Darwin, restrains traitorous mortal impulses. There were mortals who behaved freely, pursing their true desires, but they all died out, because evil is weak and self-destructive. They cut off their own tackle and bled to death. 

 Mortals will avoid evil if they believe the consequences of the behaviour will trigger one of their Darwininan harm-avoidance fixed action patterns. In other words, mortals will avoid evil if evil will get them executed. 

 Even so, the mortal will malice-maximize. They will run right up to the execution line. Get as close as they can manage without going over. This is why there's no point in being lenient. It only encourages them. 

 We can imagine a virtuous man, but just as plato had to imagine the aristocracy he never personally saw, we have to imagine it. It's not physically impossible or anything, and indeed if you see one, assuming they're malicious is unsuitable. Being lenient with a virtuous cooperator is prudent and profitable. In theory this constitutes a test, you can be lenient and see if it works out for you, but...