I agree with most of the posts above, but since you’re still not clear, I’ll try a different formulation.
Benevolent Universe: The focus on the good – assuming no Pollyannaism – could be a manifestation benevolent universe premise. Strictly, the premise says that we can do stuff. In other words, we go not live in a world tormented by whimsical Gods, but in a rational world that we can understand, and where we can put that knowledge to work to achieve our ends. In other words, man is efficacious. We know that bad things can happen – natural disasters and man-made – but, we still retain the capacity to change things and overcome problems. The point of the premise is not that the universe has only good stuff in it, but rather that we have more than enough to work with, enough to enact our ends, in principle. (Check this earlier thread.)
Strangers: Just as one has a broad evaluation of the universe, one also has a broad evaluation of “people as such”.
Suppose, you’re in a crowd of people walking briskly to catch a plane and the guy in front of you drops something, but does not notice. Do you alert him to it? Do you shrug it off as “why bother”? Do you smirk, “what an idiot, to lose his stuff carelessly”? If one knew him and liked him or hated him, one might have one or the other of these responses. However, if he’s a perfect stranger, then the way you react would typically reflect your evaluation of other people “in general”.
Suppose you alert the person and he picks it up. Now, suppose he’s a cruel, evil guy. Maybe you inadvertently put yourself in the (small) service to evil. How one acts toward strangers is largely a result of the evaluation you have which might be: “these (other) people are basically good” or “people are all idiots, I hate them all”.