> > > a) takes care to behave in an ethical manner;
> >
> > Based on my understanding of what "ethical" means (backed up by dictionary.com, at least), you mean that a good person adheres to accepted standards of conduct. Yes?
>
> I would probably add a condition that ethical conduct involves a moral dimension in addition to a standard of societal acceptability. Someone who acts ethically treats others in a humane manner.

Okay. And the judge of this would also, presumably, be the person making the verdict on the overall goodness of the individual in question, yes?

> > > b) deeply and sincerely cares about others -- not in a friends-and-family sense, but in a rest-of-humanity sense;
> >
> > I can't penetrate this statement. In what way is caring about people "in a rest-of-humanity sense" different from caring about people in a "friends-and-family sense?"
>
> It's perfectly possible to care deeply about your friends, family, etc. but look with utter scorn at the homeless person on the street or dismiss people dying of AIDS in Africa. I suppose what I'm trying to describe is a recognition that every person is human, and as human deserves to be cared for and accorded a certain measure of dignity; a sincere determination to try to stop instinctively of the world into us-and-them categories and caring only about the "us"es. Caring about others in a rest-of-humanity sense means recognizing that even the people who seem totally different from you are not wholly other, and that no matter how much you disagree with them you should respect them, treat them as fellow human beings, and if possible rectify any wrongs or injustices in their lives instead of passing by without a second glance when you could offer some help.
>
> I hope that that's at least a little clearer. Keep prodding me if it isn't. ;)

Nope, that's perfect. I get it now. And also, I imagine, the person determining success or failure in this regard would be the person who is judging overall goodness as with the others, yes?

Quick note:

> Do you want me to give you a percentage of the time that someone has to act in a way to improve others' lives in order to be considered a good person? This isn't a scientific inquiry,

I beg to differ. This definitely IS a scientific inquiry. Otherwise, what is it?

> I would say that "consistently" would mean that when someone has the opportunity to act in a way that improves others' lives, that person acts in that way the majority of the time.

Very good.