Fede wrote:No, Peter's right.
Remember, that the action must be intentional.
So one would have to be intentionally doing good in one way whilst intentionally doing "non-good" in the other.
Have you ever performed an action intending, willfully to do both harm and good at the same time?
I cannot truly say I ever have.
I think it may be a little more complicated that just saying one person is right in this discussion. I think what we're really talking about is a "course of action" rather than a "single action."
If by "single action" you mean a single mind moment, that's one thing. But if you are talking about the way our decisions and actions play out in a practical sense, that's another thing. In the example provided, the woman who authorized the abortion for her 9-year-old daughter who had been raped is being held out as performing akusala kamma by authorizing the abortion. Yet it's hard to imagine that she committed this action while intending willfully to do only harm.
Her "action" of authorizing the abortion might be regarded from one perspective as a "single action," but when you look at it more closely, the entire length of time it took her to speak to the doctor, sign the forms, etc., involved countless mind moments during which she may have committed both kusala kamma as well as akusala kamma.
In answer to your question: "Have you ever performed an action intending
to do both harm and
good at the same time?" Any answer will depend on what you mean by a "single action." Broadly speaking, I'd say, yes, I have engaged in conduct with the intention, willfully, to do both harm and good.
I think it's more applicable to talk about a "course of action" rather than a "single action." The truth of the matter is that we don't always know whether our course of action is kusala or akusala, but certainly it can be a blend of the two.
I'm putting this forward mindful of the fact that my understanding may be flawed, and I welcome feedback and clarification.