Well, yes the title of the thread is flawed. I suspect Shambles was trying to be provocative. Good folks will do bad things for a lot of reasons, especially insufficient or innaccurate information. Good people have falsely convicted and imprisoned the innocent, for example. Good people can sit on a jury, weigh the facts in a case, and come to the conclusion that a person is guilty. Their intention is to prevent this person from further harming society (good). Their effect is to imprison an innocent (bad).
But I would contend that any of the other arguments about those who do evil through excessive greed, those who do evil through excessive jingoist patriotic fervor, those who do evil through a conviction of racial superiority...none of these qualify as good folk doing bad things. These are examples of misguided bad folk pursuing their own agendas. By the way, I don't buy the arguments about greed, jingoism, racism, etc being forms of religion. Webster defines Religion as 1) The belief in a supernatural power which governs our behavior and our fate, and 2) a structure of behavior deriving from this belief and governing those who share it. Calling greed a religion may be a good way of evading the crux of this argument by casting a net wide enough to call any strongly held conviction a "religion", but it's really just a misdirection because the debater has no solid ground on which to refute a basic point : Religion is motivation for irrational behavior in response to the instruction dictated from books which are the reputed to be the final word of an all-powerful supernatural force. The existence of the force is unproveable, and the tenets of belief are irrational, but any effort to question them on a reasonable basis is deemed evil or mean-spirited, and the questioner is invariably denounced as cold, unfeeling, materialistic, etc. These arguments are the same ones used by the Catholic Church in an attempt to lock up the reasonable breakthroughs of people like Galileo, Newton, and Davinci, because of their unwillingness to accept religious dogma as truth.
So, compare our well-meaning jury of folks doing bad things to a case of an honest Iraqi plumber who loves his children, pets his dog, feeds the hungry family next door, and then straps on a plastic explosive and a bag of ball bearings and kills 12 people at a wedding. The example of the jury describes the unfortunate but understandable example of acting on faulty, though reasonable, information. The second case demonstrates a situation where our plumber was motivated by one of two things...a)madness b)religion. To contend that they are different things may indeed be splitting hairs. Religion here being a literal interpretation of the teaching of a Holy Book, which is the mark of the True Believer.