"The word "good" has many meanings. For example, if a man were to shoot his grandmother at a range of five hundred yards, I should call him a good shot, but not necessarily a good man"

Language is rich with words whose meanings shift dramatically depending on context, and "good" is notably ambiguous. It denotes moral quality, excellence in skill, or satisfying performance with ease, sometimes muddling conversations and judgments. The distinction highlighted by Gilbert K. Chesterton demonstrates the crucial gap between technical proficiency and moral uprightness.

A man shooting his grandmother from five hundred yards demonstrates considerable marksmanship, a difficult feat. By one measure, the man is indeed a "good shot", an assessment based solely on capability, not intent or ethicality. Skill is neutral; it simply marks the person's ability to achieve a particular outcome. Therefore, the phrase "good shot" is a technical compliment, divorced entirely from the matter of whether the action was right or wrong.

However, skill divorced from ethics can be troubling. The same proficiency, applied to a heinous act like murdering one's grandmother, invokes outrage or horror, not admiration. In this case, the word "good" as applied to the man's moral character would be starkly inappropriate. The murderer’s act cannot be sanitized by linguistic coincidence; technical proficiency does not equate to personal goodness.

Chesterton uses this paradox to warn about the perils of conflating efficiency, practicality, or skillfulness with virtue. In daily life, we praise "good" doctors, soldiers, or leaders, sometimes meaning competent, sometimes implying ethical. This ambiguity creates space for misunderstanding, or worse, for excusing immoral acts simply because they are performed adeptly.

Yet, society thrives when it keeps these meanings distinct, refusing to let excellence in action substitute for goodness in spirit. Linguistic nuance captures subtle truths about human behavior: someone can excel at a skill while wholly failing the test of morality. Chesterton reminds us to look beyond language’s conveniences, and to judge actions, and people, by standards appropriate to their consequences and intentions.