Thread:Mediawatcher/@comment-3581997-20140826160532/@comment-3581997-20140920041639

I get what you mean, and agree with the logic behind it, but as it is a relatively young term I think it best to consult root word; Karma. And Karma has little to do with what is morally right or wrong, just action and consequence. People who accidentally do something wrong are still subject to Karma.

I'm not going to try to protect or enforce any examples, just working with the base concept. See the nature gives all things a certain amount of leeway, a tiger kills a human for the meat, it may or may not get a karmic backlash. But the tiger actively starts hunting humans, it's chances of Karmic backlash go up because it is doing more than is necessary, same thing with a human hunter who hunts a tiger, one tiger you can get away with maybe, but actively searching for tigers to kill, even if it is just to protect yourself, you are taking more life than needed. The example that comes to mind is Disney's Tarzan if you have ever seen it. Clayton and Sabor are both the same character, hunters who get carried away with the hunt, though to be fair Clayton is clearly the more wholly evil of the two. End of the day they are both just doing what it is in their nature to do but they kill far more than they need and both end of paying the price, now Sabor is just a predator, it's not personal it's just instinct, but actively putting himself in a life taking situation (trying to eat babies) puts him more at risk to pay karmic consequences.

I agree with what you mean, it is not morally wrong and as such following instinct should not need to be paid back one way or the other, it's just that since Karma functions based need vs excess and not on good vs evil it sort of undercuts things. But then again I'm using the root concept.