Zaik said:
The first thing that pops into your head.
Excess of virtue. To be Good is to act in line with function beyond the bare minimum necessary to achieve a particular intensional goal. For instance, a hammer hits a nail into a bit of wood - a good hammer makes it easy to do so. A bird of prey eats small mammals - a good bird of prey does so without expending as much energy as it gains by eating it.
Goodness in people is tricky, because it requires understanding what it means to act virtuously in a general sense. A good plumber, a good telesales operator, or a good politician, are easy to quantify in their virtues
qua that particular role, but to what extent does our job or our social role define us as a person?
If we accept that mankind is a social animal, then our social success constitutes our goodness. If we think mankind is a thinking or reasoning animal, then our intellectual success constitute our goodness.
Controversy emerges when we try to think some functions of humanity are privileged, and goodness
simpliciter makes sense when we talk about people. I don't think it does, whatever Aristotle or Christianity might say.
Then read what everyone else said.
Then argue about it amongst yourselves like you love to do, internet.
Woo! Internet Argument!