I'll do my best to answer, but it's kind of challenging. My "web" of how I determine these things is kind of complex, and there's a lot of caveots and exceptions to the rule that applies them to other rules. Nevertheless:
When you call someone a "good person" (if you do) what is your metric for making that judgement?
The biggest metric is are the honest, authentic, and genuine in the help and support they give to others, or their work. A good person is someone who tries to aid others, or a cause, genuinely cares, and doesn't put their own ideals first. Their ideals can come first though if they are in congruent with the other.
The best example I can give to split this, is activist workers. An activist who is striving for a cause and aids others along the ways and wants to make an open, inclusive, strives for good and doesn't want to burn everything to ground to achieve an end, and doesn't get condeming in the process. Someone can be working for a passionate just cause (the environment, gay rights, etc.), but expects everyone to radically change their lives, potentially by manipulation of force. That does not make for a good person despite having good intentions.
What makes someone good? Would you consider yourself a good person? Why?
Basically the above. Do I consider myself a good person? Mostly, but not fully. I
strive to be a good person, and striving doesn't make. In some areas I am good, in others not at all. There's a reason I call myself lawful neutral. I also sort of leave this judgement to others. I don't believe it is fully right of me to determine myself as a good person, and I think others are a more objective judge of this. Of course not everyone matters. Only people who are of sound mind and have the proper information about me to make a proper call (and ones who are not bias).
And since this sort of follows, what gives you a sense of identity? Is your identity inherent? Do you think about who you are as a person or is it not a topic of thought for you?
My identity is very inherent for me. I don't need to think about it. It just sort of is. I know what parts of myself are "true" and I just go from there. Granted, I do cultivate my identity extensively. We all do, but I tend to do it a lot more than the norm I am starting to realize. Basically, there are part of myself that are very core to how I feel and am, and I want others to see it. Thus, I put effort into displaying this. I don't really consciously think about it, I just sort of do it. I basically press a button in my mind, and the machine for it turns on and does its thing. It does take a lot of fuel though, but I have a lot of fuel to begin with.
I think about who I am a lot, and I also don't think about it at all. I think about myself insofar as who I am so I can better present myself, be more liked, be virtuous/good, and improve myself and be better skilled and useful. I don't really fret over what exactly that
is though. It's more that the goal is what is declared, as so long as my identity goals are met, it doesn't really matter what the identity
is. In others words: I choose what the box is, but what fills the box can be whatever so long as it's filled to the right weight. I mean, it does matter insofar as there are certain identities I
don't want to be. If those actually
are part of me, they are MASSIVELY suppressed. Those things are things I regard as universally bad and uncondonable in a tangible way, not just garden variety dislike.
What informs being good? What informs an identity?
I'm not quite sure how to answer this. I think the above covers this. Essentially, it's external information that tells me what it is and should be. I am simply not comfortable developing or generating things purely in a vacuum- that feels really wrong. Fine for others, but not for me.