The grandmother applies the label “good” indiscriminately, blurring the definition of a “good man” until the label loses its meaning entirely. She first applies it to Red Sammy after he angrily complains of the general untrustworthiness of people. He asks her why he let two strangers charge their gasoline—he’s obviously been swindled—and the grandmother says he did it because he’s “a good man.” In this case, her definition of “good” seems to include gullibility, poor judgment, and blind faith, none of which are inherently “good.” She next applies the label “good” to the Misfit. After she recognizes him, she asks him whether he’d shoot a lady, although he never says that he wouldn’t. Because being a lady is such a significant part of what the grandmother considers moral, the Misfit’s answer proves that he doesn’t adhere to the same moral code as she does. The grandmother desperately calls him a good man, as though appealing to some kind of underlying value that the Misfit wouldn’t want to deny. Her definition of “good,” however, is skewed, resting almost entirely on her claim that he doesn’t have “common blood.”
The grandmother’s wanton application of the label “good man” reveals that “good” doesn’t imply “moral” or “kind.” For the grandmother, a man is a “good man” if his values are aligned with her own. Red Sammy is “good” because he trusts people blindly and waxes nostalgic about more innocent times—both of which the grandmother can relate to. The Misfit is “good” because, she reasons, he won’t shoot a lady—a refusal that would be in keeping with her own moral code. Her assumption, of course, proves to be false. The only thing “good” about the Misfit is his consistency in living out his moral code of “no pleasure but meanness.”