Can a bad person ever do a good thing?

For this question, it is important to answer the question at hand. This means take the question at face value and try and answer it in the format it is given, instead of answering a completely different question such as “can good people do bad things”. What the examiner wants you to do is assess certain arguments for and against and then come to a reasoned conclusion, based on certain elements that you have raised. In the introduction, state which way that you will argue but also mention certain things that you will talk about in the answer. In the case of this one, there are numerous arguments that could be raised, with specific focus on Christian teachings like free will, and therefore for the purposes of this I will reach the conclusion that bad people can do good things.

In the body of the text find a structure that suits you and stick to it. In an exam you will not have a lot of time to write and fully develop so it may be useful to do this. One format that I found useful during GCSE would be to “ping-pong” the arguments, so give an argument for, then rebuttal it with an argument against, then allow for a further rebuttal. For example, for this question, you can focus on the nature of a good action as being key to whether the person is good. In this case, our main argument would be that God gave us all free will (would be useful to insert a bible quote here) and therefore humans were able to commit good actions. This means that a bad person is able to do a good thing because it is the action that is key and if the action is good then it is accessible for anyone to commit.

This could then be met with an argument against, which is that if the person is free to do what they want then a bad person may be able to do a good thing in order to further their own bad ways. Here, an example could be used of a person who is trying to be nice to a person only to mislead them in the future. This brings into question the issue of intention, another part which will further your argument and therefore cover more scope in your answer. One rebuttal of this could be to bring in the concept of agape which would allow for a bad person to be able to do a good thing if their intention is correct. This concept could be illustrated through the novel A Christmas Carol by Charles Dickens where Scrooge had been a bad person unable to be charitable but then woke up with the intention of changing and therefore was able to do good things. This also then brings in the concept of Kantian ethics where bad people are able to adhere to maxims, as Scrooge sees the reciprocations of him acting badly to other people when in the future people express their hatred towards him. Therefore, it may been that bad people will act in a good way if they don’t want people to act in a bad way towards them. However, there are arguments against this with saying that the example of Scrooge appears to be incredibly pragmatic, meaning that the person is not acting as if everyone acting like this will make the world a better place, but instead is acting in a way that protects the individual, meaning it is not a good action. There doesn’t need to be that much explanation of this because it is not a key part of the essay, however it may be a good thing to pop in if you are looking for a higher mark.

To conclude, you summarise your points from either side and a good way of doing this is to a) say why you chose your side and b) say why you didn’t choose the other side. So for this essay, although there is serious consideration that needs to be made for the intention of an action, if we consider the action to be simply at face value then a bad person is able to do a good action. It is short, sweet and just allows you to wrap up the question nicely. For higher marks, the reason why the other side is wrong is particularly important as you are ending the debate.

Oh, and don’t forget SPaG (spelling, punctuation and grammar)! Doing so could lose marks, so be careful!