Usually, people differentiate between positive and negative “stuff” in their world. Usually, this differentiation depends on their beliefs, cultural setting, what’s socially accepted, their upbringing, experiences, etc.
I stopped using “positive” and “negative” and use “life-supportive” or “life-affirming” and “life-destructive” instead. Why? Because I see how often positive/negative triggers a judgmental attitude – we tend to categorise into positive/negative = good/bad, negative being bad, positive being good. But what’s positive in my world might not be the same in yours. Instead I ask myself: has this (behaviour/project/person/etc.) a life-supportive/life-affirming effect or does it hinder/block/destroy life? And if it destroys life in the short run (e.g. killing another life form), might it have a life-supportive effect in the long run?
As you can imagine these kind of questions initiate a complex and “wholeistic” thought process that can help with decision-making and that is, in my view, much more efficient and “life-supportive” than following the often blurry positive/negative track ;)
Positive/negative easily triggers a judgment whereas life-affirming/life-destructive triggers an assessment.