How do they treat those that are "beneath" them? Customer service workers, pets, kids, etc. Anyone that they should have some sort of authority over.

If they harm other people, intentionally or not, physically, emotionally, etc. And they could stop but choose not to, then often they are a bad person.

Easy. By what they say and do.

I assume everyone is good by default, and I'll usually let a tasteless joke slide once, because we all occasionally put our foot in mouth.

If their actions and words don't mesh with my own moral compass, they aren't a person I associate with any more than necessary.

Although philosophers who embrace moral realism will have different views, my takeaway is that it is much harder to be a virtuous moral agent than the layperson assumes.

That said, if I find that a person often puts their own interests above those of everyone else, this is a good indication of questionable character.

Empathy

If they lie all the time, they are probably willing to do other awful things as well.

If they are willing to steal outside of a desperate situation, if they treat someone who's been good to them awful, if they treat those beneath them awfuly, if they judge based on location, race, etnicity, etc. If they put whatever fantasy world they live in, over reality (antivaxxers and such, and yes religious people).

If they co-operated with Jeffrey Epstein, they only belong in the woodchipper.

It's all about empathy. If they lack empathy or kindness then fuck them. I don't want them in my life and I prefer not to interact with them.

Their ability to return their shopping cart to the corral

Louis Rossman had a video years ago that really got me looking at people differently. An obvious sign for him is how they treat animals. animals sadly are often the ultimate litmus test for ones morality. I find that respecting an animal, its boundries and its emotions is a thing only possible when youve developed a (imo) basic sense of empathy, that for pets and animals cant be expressed verbally.

Think of times when a person was trying to force an animals to behave in a particular way purely for self intrest. Or if someone you know outright denies the complex emotions of animals. I am by no means an animal rights activist and i often can be heard yelling at my dog to stop barking or etc. But i think even if we "own" them most good people dont think of pets as propperty, status symbols, or entertainment.

the moment i see behavior like this I try to correct and if they actively fight me on it or make no attempt to improve. I will disconnect from them entirely, not worth it. If thats how you treat family, i dont want to see how you treat friends.

How people behave towards animals is a really big one for me. If someone doesn't like cats or dogs or any sort of critters for any reason other than a traumatic childhood attack memory I assume something is deeply wrong with them. I realize plenty of bad people don't hate animals, but I assume if you do then you can't be good.

One of my tests as I've grown older is whether or not that person is capable of treating someone else's children as their own.

Both my father and step father did, so I didn't realize how rare of an attribute this is, nor did I realize how evil not having this attribute can make some seemingly good people behave.

If society was only copies of this person, would it be better or worse to live in than current society?

By their ability to empathize.

Their levels of empathy, their relationship with their own ego, and, similarly, their levels of selfishness / egotistic/ egocentric. That's the core that drives, they'll make decisions on who to betray from that core, with no care for others, they become quite dangerous to be around. That said something people are good at pretending they have empathy and aren't egocentric, but if you wait and watch, pretend always has cracks to see through. And i don't mean small moments of overwhelm. I mean, polar opposite behaviours that seem outside their morals, when not in an extreme emotion. You will usually see little things around the edges, and your instinct is to excuse it away, because it doesn't fit the narrative, don't do that bit. Little things around the edges might look like casually stealing, possibly just small things, sometimes even from friends, jealousy or a hatred for someone for no apparent reason other than they're good at something the person in question is, too. Wanting a lot of attention, without giving anyone else room in the spotlight, or giving less and less room for others in the spotlight, until it's all about them. Passing blame, it's always someone elses fault, or excuses for everything they do that they feel are a reason to be able to do the poor behaviour, rather than taking responsibility, learning and growing. Unable to metabolise failure, at all. If you look up fixed and growth mindset, (Carol Dweck) narcissistic types, always have a fixed mindset. Where they're Unable to utilise mistakes or failures to learn and grow, and believe that you are inherently born good at things or not, rather than practice at anything making you able to be an expert at something.

I cannot remember the reference right now, but it's said that anyone can become "genius" level at something, if they just put 7 years of practice into it. "Bad" people, practice being like everyone else, they are very good at learning what you want to see, and mirroring that, for a time, it's not something anyone can hold up for very long, but that said, I've seen it held up for a year, odd, at times.

If you wait, don't get enmeshed with someone too quickly, they usually try to move fast to enmesh you, and remember that a lot of what you see in anyone around you, is what your brain imagines is there, you put a "persona" on people, all people. What's in everyone is a complex mix of a different set of morals, and emotional maturity, privilege and perspective of the world that's shaped by their unique upbringing, surroundings and environment. Even two siblings can have very different upbringing, surroundings and environment. And everyone has bad and good, in them. What you need to assess is the harm they could or do cause you and what you need to do to keep safe, keeping in mind that psychological, emotional and verbal abuse, are as harmful as physical abuse. And then decide what level of involvement is safe for you.

Depends on how they handle their Nardwuar interview.

Most people are good. Most people forget to be kind to others sometimes.

Some people forget to be kind to others more. I kinda don't like that.

Some people need to cause others discomfort to feel like they are in control of their lives. I dislike that.

Some people feel that they have the right to or even should cause others discomfort because they have some kind of birthright granted by their religion, how aggressive their ancestors were, or some perception that they've worked harder than others. I feel that such people should either be rigorously reeducated or in some way removed from access to other humans entirely.

In addition to some of the other criteria mentioned, some other indicators of a bad person are:

• Using bad-faith argument techniques, such as tone policing
• Endorsing or demanding conformity for conformity's sake

two things.

1. how they treat other people
2. what they don't say

first one is pretty easy. don't treat other people like pieces of shit, or you're a piece of shit.

second one, when they see something happening that is wrong and do nothing. you're a piece of shit.

Through their actions.

By their behavior.

By how they talk about people who aren't part of the conversation. Someone focuses a lot on heaping contempt on former coworkers and romantic partners, it's a bad sign.

are their actions based on how they benefit them?

If a person operates as if nothing is unconditional and they expect something in return or else you are deemed worthless, they're a fucking cunt.

If a person continually makes a situation about themselves even when it's 100% not, that's a red flag.

If they whine and complain to get what they want or have others do for them, they're a bad person.

Yelling at a newborn baby in a punishing manner as if they have any understanding of anything.

I assume everyone is good untill they give me a reason to think otherwise. However, for me to know that someone truly is a good person takes years of knowing and interacting with them.

"There was definitely a more virtuous path to take here, why didn't they? Are they just that stupid? Emotionally overwhelmed and unable to be righteous? Or are they in full awareness and capacities, but they just don't care?"

The answer gives me a data point, and with a collection of points (fewer are needed the further the decisions are from virtue) I make my assessment.

I determine it by analyzing their attitude, behaviour, body language, their personal beliefs.

I don't judge persons (because I'm not in their head), I look at their actions.

Also, I tend to steer away from the 'good' vs 'bad' (persons, thoughts, sexuality, religion, and so on) that were and still way too often used to hurt people one doesn't like or agree with.

By watching show they behave when they can get away with doing the bad things.

Everyone will name some virtue they consider themselves to possess, and then use that to judge someone else.

I do the same thing almost everyone else in here actually does. I ask, 'how much are they like me?' Because, we all think of ourselves as being a good person. If I'm shocked and repulsed by something they do, because I wouldn't do that, then they are a "bad" person.

A few will say the opposite, "If they don't do what I do, then they're better than me, so they're probably a 'good' person." Because to those few, self-depreciation makes them a "good" person.

The book “Sapiens” does a good job framing this. Humans are social creatures. Our social groups define their own norms, mores, values, etc. To be “good” is to align with those values. Clashes happen when groups with vastly different values interact. The old adage “if you were born where they were born, and you were raised how they were raised, then you would believe what they believe” applies here, even though this isn’t always true.

The Internet makes this problem more stark. Our groups aren’t based on location anymore; our neighborhood, our school, our church. We can find our group(s) that align with and reinforce us any time we want. It’s also upset the typical way we define our values, and our society is struggling to catch up.

So long way of saying, good or bad relies on context and the values of those you’re close with.

But fuck people who don’t return their shopping cart. They’re just plain bad.

I mainly believe that most people are a product of their circumstances and how they have decided to cope with their experiences. But imo, a good person regularly does things that benefit others without any benefit to themselves. Especially if they're not obligated to do it. Good people are kind (but not a pushover) to everyone, even if someone is unkind to them.

On the other end of the spectrum, bad people do things that hurt others even if it is of no benefit to themselves. They are unkind even if it takes nothing off of them to be kind.

I don't like to think of people as immutably good or bad, but I get what you meant.

There's a bunch of factors.

• are they honest?
• are they kind?
• do they care about things other than themselves?
• do they try to make the world better?

So, someone who lies, is cruel, doesn't care about anyone else, and leaves the world a mess is being a pretty bad person.

Someone who just keeps their head down, goes to work, and is polite to people they meet is kind of middling.

I've always struggled with it, so I've learned to ask someone better at character judgement than I.

I used to check with my dog. Then I met my wife and found out over a year how moral she was and how consistently she applied those morals. Now I ask her.

Heh. I assume everyone is a bad person unless they immensely prove that they aren't. they can't do lots of drugs, lead chaotic lives, be anti-intellectual, be a gossip, be greedy, a control freak, have an immoral job, use religion as a cudgel, have no integrity, be overly optimistic, have lots of kids, etc. etc.

The fundamental attribution error explains why we perceive people to be good or bad.

I know you said to just downvote, but I really strongly believe the world would be a much better place if people tried to understand the motivations of others, rather than trying to categorise them as good or bad people.

If they are willing to hurt other people for their own benefit or for no reason. Or if they are willing to help someone else do that. (Like how republicans voted Trump into office to keep him out of prison.)

I believe people can be good in different ways. I had a friend who had some batshit insane religious beliefs (Baptist), like she said it was worse to kill yourself than someone else, because then you couldn't repent. But she would do anything for a friend, I had an emergency and she kept my kids even though she had a job interview, as an example. So she was good in actions and I'd argue evil in beliefs.

I have a coworker who is so mean & cutting, complains relentlessly about her husband, prickly person but does a great job at her job, loves her dog, and is great to work with because she Gets Shit Done. Is she good? Bad ?

I guess my bottom line criteria is can you care about others in at least some way, so empathy or sympathy is what makes it possible to be good.

I believe in different shapes of people. They see some and they're blind some. And they have habits.

You really don't know until you need something from them.

But even good people may not be able to help you if they're not able to right that moment.

Finding good willing people seems to be more of a numbers game.

Everybody has the capacity to be an asshole once in a while. To asshole is human.

But in general, people who go out of their way to stir shit up, or be an asshole/intentionally rude about something, then play the victim when they get called out for being an asshole. Waste of fucking space and energy. Just go live on a fucking island with all the other passive aggressive assholes.

For me it is more about what does the person contribute for the betterment of society.

If they try to ingratiate themselves too aggressively, if they make way too good eye contact and smile so big and are effusively positive, and they make the hairs on the back of my neck crawl, I know it’s highly likely I’m interacting with a sociopath or psychopath.

Everyone that’s normal has a chance to be good or evil and it changes over time.

If the person hits the trigger points above though I know they aren’t going to be a stable actor to deal with because they will lack empathy, be utterly self serving, and never feel guilt for their actions.

I’ve encountered quite a few of these people in my years and they often are in positions of authority because they are really good at fooling and manipulating people.

I don’t know if this is good or bad but I definitely try to avoid or at least ring fence people like this when I encounter them.

Good old fashioned eye/smell test.

This might be a hot take. I have a hard time with people who constantly drives above the speed limit. To me it says a lot about who they are.

E.g.

• they believe that rules don't apply to them

• that they are egoistic

• that they are reckless and can't foresee the potential consequences.

• that they lack empathy

I don't think people can be divided into good and bad, I think it's more of a spectrum. I generally judge how good a person is by the virtues they show in their actions. I like when people take accountability for their actions, are kind to others, do what's right even if it's difficult, are honest, and their actions align with what they claim to believe.

How eusocial they are / how well they fit in society. This is not a moral judgement, for me, just an assessment of how adept they are at being a person.

how do they value family? as throwaways or as irreplaceable star material?