There's a conflict here between a spiritual or teleological view of natural processes, and a scientific, objectifying view that takes those processes to be morally neutral. Some theologically elaborate forms of Buddhism might posit a morally positive ontology involving Buddha nature, pure lands, and so on, but the basic Buddhism I'm dealing with is supposed to be empiricist and naturalistic, I think, so it should be consistent with the second, scientific interpretation of nature.

The Buddhist I was debating in this article said at one point that the Buddha's karma pushes him in a moral direction even if he's not attached to moral goals. This would be a metaphysical contention that conflicts with scientific naturalism. So I'm assuming the naturalism that I think motivates early Buddhism.