Goodness is a blessing. The belief in wholehearted, beneficial actions that help many others in the given process. However, we've never asked to what extent something or someone counts as "good". For example, even if the atomic bombs were used to end WW2, could any good come out of convincing the Japanese to surrender through nuclear warfare? I don't believe it myself honestly, but many support the bombs' use. Would they have continued a meaningless battle? If someone was doing "good deeds" but actually didn't truly care about the needs of others, but wanted attention and a good reputation, does that count as good? What is truly good and what is not? I'd like to know. Thanks for helping out. 

Ultrajeff : to me what counts as good is when a person puts the needs of others ahead of their own so that whenever they do good for others it will show that they are doing good for their sake and not just for the sake of giving themselves a good reputation,I also consider it to be good whenever a person can show others that they are honest and can be trusted

What you as a person consider good. There is no universal good and bad, it isn't black and white like that. There are times when a "good" decision is evil and vice versa. It's all subjective really. Animals have no sense of morality, or maybe the do and it's different from ours. But really, there is no clear answer on this.

Good is going out of your way to help other people when hey need it. It's being honest, honorable, considerate, selfless and forgiving. To put it into a single phrase that may or may not be over used, going good is going unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Now that I think about it, that saying is ever so slightly redundant. I mean, "as you would have others do unto you" makes it about you, which is the opposite of selflessness....

Ultrajeff :

Philosophy time! The terms I'm using below will be from Immanuel Kant, whom I disagree with on almost everything, but is a very clear writer.

There are two understandings of "good". One is the "hypothetical imperative", which is essentially an if-then statement. If you want to win WWII, then you need to drop the bomb. Insofar as the statement is true, then to drop the bomb is good. This kind of goodness is goal oriented, and a goal and means must be proposed.

The other kind of good is the "categorical imperative", which is usually expressed as a duty. "Do not lie" is good. The method for figuring out categorical imperatives differ, but all reduces to a specific foundation. Kant takes an entirely rational approach, and says that to lie contradicts the idea of communication entirely. Mill's foundation is pleasure, and lying is actually acceptable when it increases the net total pleasure in the world (or lessens pain). Aristotle's foundation is the human being, so lying is unacceptable because it's a negative human character trait.

I side with Aristotle. "Goodness" is about human character, and humans are both rationalistic and animalistic. Both must be accounted for. So, as for WWII, we want the excellence of as many people as possible. Death pretty much ends any persons excellence, so the good is to have as many people live in a good way. American strategists couldn't get Japan to surrender. They estimated they needed to capture the emperor and force him to sign the paper. This would involve an invasion. They made 500,000 purple hearts for the estimated deaths in that invasion. Then we completed the bomb. Instead of 500,000 Americans dying and 1 million Japanese dying, the bomb ended the war with less than 200,000 deaths AND injuries. Now the US and Japan are great friends. It was a wonderful decision.

I think this and the evil thread could have been in one thread but ok

Anyways, I don't think it's really that meaningful to think about what counts as good and what counts as evil, outside of our normal day-to-day tasks. Morally or religiously the only thing we can really do is hope to atone for our sins and try and forget what we regret. Otherwise, does it really matter?