Man is inevitably born into the world naked and hungry, totally dependent upon his mother for the necessities of life.
I would term "good" anything that improves his condition from that of a newborn while causing few negative consequences to the condition of others.
The great failing of socialism is the bankrupt idea that economics is a "zero sum game"; that is, that there is a fixed amount of wealth in the world and "fairness" amounts to deciding who should have it.
Man's ability to reason makes it possible to create massive wealth and to improve the condition of billions of people.
Agriculture and domestication of animals is "good".
Vaccines and indoor plumbing are "good".
Antibiotics are "good".
Mass production of tools is "good".
Our ancestors would be baffled and amazed at what passes for poverty in the U.S. today. Americans just need a good wake-up call to drive home the point. I fear that that wake-up call is fast approaching.
That's a decent definition. My main point was to show that goodness is a very complex concept. It can't be simplified into an emotive reaction, it can't be gained from authority (Dear Leader says it is good so it must be good), etc. Those paths lead to misery.
As you implied, goodness relies on a perception of the human condition (our own and others through empathy), the goodness of an action will become clear when the consequences including hidden consequences are considered. E.g., taking from the rich to help the poor is not good.