We find it fairly easy to define ourselves by what we believe: our values, our political ideas, our religion, the causes we support, or the kind of person we think we are.
The problem is that none of those labels guarantees a conduct.
We can defend justice and be unjust in a particular situation. We can speak of empathy and treat with contempt whoever makes us uncomfortable. We can consider ourselves to be on the right side and use precisely that conviction to justify behaviour we would condemn in someone else.
That does not automatically make someone a “bad person”. Perhaps that is another label too large. People are more variable than that: we can act well in some circumstances and badly in others, learn, get worse, correct ourselves, or go wrong again.
That is why it can be more useful to ask about conduct than about moral identity.
Have I been fair here? Have I listened? Am I applying to the other person a standard I would accept for myself? Am I responding to harm, or using the harm I received as permission to harm?
Moral superiority is especially dangerous when it exempts us from examining ourselves. Thinking that our values are good does not mean that every action carried out in their name is good too.
We can feel outrage and set limits. We can denounce an injustice, disagree firmly, or demand accountability. None of that obliges us to dehumanise the person in front of us.
So perhaps the question is not “am I a good person?”, as if it were a status acquired forever.
The more useful question is far more concrete: how am I behaving right now?