What is the term for the fallacy where a bad act is said to be negated by a good act?

Question

ie, "I stole money, but then I did charity work, so it all ends up even"

Answer 1

It's the ethical philosophy that the end justifies the means.

Answer 2

I haven't heard a name for that specific fallacy.

1. I stole money. (A)
2. Then I did charity work. (B)
3. It all ends up even. (C)

It's basically saying because of A is true and B is true, then C is true. But there is no reason why A and B should yield C therefore the argument isn't valid. It's not a logical argument because the statement doesn't support why A and B yield C. C might be true or false, but we can’t make that conclusion from the argument.

This would be a valid argument.
1. I stole money.
2. I did charity.
3. A good dead makes a bad dead OK. (assumption)
4. Stealing money is a bad dead. (assumption)
5. Charity is a good dead. (assumption)
6. That I stole money is a OK (conclusion)

Although this is a valid argument, it might not be sound since 3, 4, and 5 may be false.

Answer 3

Redemption