I look to see how animals regard them. That is my first and best indicator.
Generally speaking, this is true. However, it's not a hardfast rule. I've known dogs who were absolutely devoted to their owners, who were mean and cruel to the dogs. I've also known people whom I know (as much as anyone can) to be good people that dogs didn't like.
Honesty, Respect, Manners, Intelligent and Caring
Does intelligence really define a good person? Can you not be uneducated and still a good person?
My ex had a limited education and had no interest in politics, social justice and current events. Nothing in common the relationship existed on the basis of economic need, physical/sexual chemistry and a dog.
I think it boils down to empathy. Does a person take the wellbeing of others into consideration when making decisions.
How they treat animals. How they treat their parents. How they react when angry
Empathy, honesty, engaging in acts of generosity of volunteerism without expecting personal benefit, not intentionally or willingly harming others.
I look for answers to the following:
how do they treat animals, wait staff & cashiers, & people who can do absolutely nothing for them, like small children?
How do they speak of the homeless, mentally ill or mentally challenged, those in dire economic straits not of their own doing?
How do they give back to the community/society? Or do they?
Do they read? What books are on their bookshelf/in their e reader or audio library? (If they say they aren't readers/have no books....run away.)
Are they able to have a political or religious discussion with someone on the opposite side of the debate without becoming angry, shouting or it devolving into a lot of name calling & physical threats.
Are they good to their word? Do they lie about things that don't matter?
I’ve read through all the comments and came back to yours. It succinctly covered all I could think of. Wonderful answer. ??
How does the person in question treat those who serve him or her? Are they patient and friendly with the wait staff, the grocery store checker, etc? Are they patient with the small snafus of life? Can they untangle a mess of christmas tree lights without cursing? Do they like dogs, cats, and small children? How do they treat those who are differently abled? Those are some of the things I look for.
Conscious decision making with the possible effects of the same in mind.
If you treat others the way that you would like to be treated this usually makes a good person. I try to follow that as a rule and your skin color, language, etc. is not a factor for me. If you follow this it is easy to see racists and white supremacists for what they really are. That lets me know who to avoid. The strange thing is that most of them also think that they are a good person. It's mindboggling.
When they "do the right thing" regardless of whether anyone is looking or their act will ever be known, particularly if it is at their own expense.
...so that being said, if I am to attack my own interpretation. This still does not define what "the right thing" actually is... It's certainly conceivable that people could have opposing beliefs on that, so without clarification of which one of them is acting in a beneficial way we cannot be sure which one of them is "good". So what we are asking is, what is "good"? Since we have already done ourselves the favor abolishing superstitious motivations as viable... What are the criteria for an act of "goodness"? If the intention of the actor is to do "good" but results in doing great harm... was the action still good? If someone else whom has malicious intent acts to do harm and said act backfires and ends up being a blessing in disguise... was the act which at first seem harmful "good" after all? Well... this is a bit of a red herring, I will concede. The poster did not ask us what a good "action" is... she asked how one would define a good "person". I think most would agree that "intent" is certainly an important part of the equation... many would leave it at that. However, I think here again are examples we can imagine that render the definition incomplete. A psychopath for example may think they are doing their victims a great blessing, ridding them of all suffering, forever. In lesser extremes, what about habitual negligence? What if despite all outside appearances and for whatever other reasons we can conceive of they just harm other people? Is having a "good heart" enough?
@Anemynous Reality is subjective. No two realities are the same. So I think "goodness" would also have to be subjective. I think there are some things we can all agree on. Many here have mentioned integrity and kindness. I would add philanthropy to the list. I think those are good building blocks. Difficult situations can bring out the worst in everyone and none of us are always good and we don't make the best decisions 100% of the time for the perfect outcome without negative fallout. Perfection and goodness must be separated. I like what you said about intent and agree.
Integrity, doing right even if nobody sees your good deeds. But you get walked on allot.
It’s something that is answered with time to get to know somebody, and also the way people define what is good. For me someone that is good is someone who does not expect anything in return after doing something good for someone.
Compassion, empathy, kindness, respect and love, to name a few.