Positive and negative means something very different when discussing atoms rather than ethics.
sometimes, i think we get hung up on language & metaphysical speculation.
I agree, and I currently believe one way to help overcome this is to determine the difference between fact and opinion.
Newton's 3rd (i think) law of motion -- "every action has an equal & opposite reaction"
Newton wasn't discussing ethics. Good and evil are imaginary concepts for the field of ethics.
for example: wouldn't there be a possibility that -if we kill an animal, the pain & suffering the animal undergoes at the time of death will create some form of energy, which will gather momentum over time & return in a circular path, to affect us?
I don't think so. Even if pain and suffering can create a migrating energy we can't detect, I don't see why that energy would be drawn the killer. And even if the pain and suffering energy did find its way to the killer, I don't see how that would affect the killer in any way.
Those who are responsible for the deaths of many, such as first world war mongers, don't seem to suffer any real negative effects from their actions. G.W.Bush lives a life of luxury while MLK was shot and killed.
the same man may treat his child with love & tenderness; yet may act with extreme vileness to torture & kill someone he hates.
I don't think love & tenderness is good, and I don't think torture and killing out of hate is evil or bad. I think we view those actions as good or bad, the actions themselves are free from those qualities. Good and evil are veils we drape over perceived stimuli. It's extra.
so, what i have indulged in here -- is of course speculation, outside the scope of Buddhism.
Most Buddhists, or those with sincere interests in Buddhism, don't consider themselves experts. I even once had a Buddhist nun tell me she was no expert on the subject of Buddhism. This is something I have always liked about Buddhism.
= new reply since forum marked as read