Personally, I think the terms 'good' or 'bad' person are to subjective to interpretation. In my opinion, there is no such thing as a good or bad person, but simply individuals that practice good actions more than bad and others that practice bad actions more than good. I know this position is bound to critics, but for me a 'good' (I'll use this term to facilitate the reply) person or bad is based on one factor - Result. In other words, I don't think having inner morals or ethics make you a 'good' person, but your actions and the results you achieve do. If someone wants to change the world and end poverty, with the best of intentions, but doesn't do a damn thing a about it, it's irrelevant. If someone donates billions and helps everyone in a positive, beneficial way to society, even if done by the less altruistic reasons (eg bragging, recognition, or simply because you have no use for money), is enough for me to consider someone good. I don't believe however that the means always justify the end, but without the result the intention becomes useless. In other words and as an atheist, I'd rather have a religious person donating billions because he/she is afraid of going to hell, than a non believer that doesn't donate anything because he/she thinks not having an obligation (moral or ethical) to do so.
Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you
