the black-and-white morality of "Cult of Color"

I saw Cult of Color: Call to Color (the new ballet by artist Trenton Doyle Hancock, choreographer Stephen Mills, and composer Graham Reynolds) last night; the costumes, choreography, music, and sound design were good, but the narrative has some conceptual problems that were hard for me to overlook.
In the story, the Vegans - "evil, self-righteous creatures who push their morality on others" and who see the world in black and white - are visited by Painter - "a mothering, loving spirit energy that represents hope and tolerance" and who "is synonymous with color." Presumably, the lesson here is that our inherited dualistic morality is not helping us and should be replaced by a pluralistic, complex morality derived not from archaic religions but from modern scientific cosmology (quantum physics, relativity, chaos theory, emergence), in order to increase tolerance and peace in the world, or something like that. However, the story proceeds to develop a hard-edged black-and-white morality just as simplistic and inflexible as the Zoroastrian philosophy that gave birth to moral dualism in the first place.
Everything and everyone in the story is clearly "good" or "bad," without a hint of complexity or ambiguity. The "evil" Vegans become "good" when their prophet Sesom (an anagram of Moses, the most well-known proponent of moral dualism) brings them a revelation from the "good" spirit Painter. Significantly, this is the only example of anyone being able to change their moral value, and the transformation is instantaneous, complete, and apparently irreversible - they are born again, and are now completely and permanently "good." These "good" Vegans must now battle with the "evil" Vegan Betto Watchow, who actually turns black, in case the contrast with the "good" white Vegans wasn't clear enough. Betto is completely evil, with no indication of humanity or complexity of motivation, no sympathetic qualities at all. Although he appears to be converted after a long battle with Sesom and Painter, it is only a trick, and the story ends with the evil Betto murdering the Color Baby who would have transformed him into a "good" Vegan.
In short, the moral universe described in Cult of Color is substantively identical to the dualistic moral world passed down to us by the 'religions of the book,' from Zoroaster to Moses to Jesus to Mohammed - everyone is evil until they make themselves good by submitting to the religious cult, and these categories of "evil" and "good" are unambiguous and mutually exclusive. Everyone is either all evil and doomed to eternal suffering, or all good and blessed with eternal bliss, and everyone is categorized instantly according to the single criterion of whether or not they have submitted to the religious cult.
In a historical moment when this kind of moral thinking threatens to destroy humankind, I expect artists to present a more nuanced picture. No one is really all good or all evil; the concepts of "good" and "evil" have always been and remain scientifically useless, tools for creating disunity and hatred and for justifying murder. Artists have an opportunity to leap ahead of the glacially slow process of popular cosmology catching up with the revelations of science; they can provide a glimpse of the possible future by assimilating the newest cosmological knowledge into speculative worlds in the present. These artistic visions can actually help open our minds to new ways of interpreting our experience, thereby actually increasing tolerance and peace in the world. Even Darth Vader was revealed as a suffering human being, still possible to love in spite of all his cruel behavior.
Is it possible that Cult of Color aims only to parody the still-prevalent dualistic morality of the present? Nothing in the narrative supports this hypothesis. Nothing complicates or calls into question the morality presented in the story; no distance is interposed between that moral scheme and the audience which might become a space for questioning its validity. Instead, it seems the audience is expected to buy into the dualistic morality of the story completely, to root for the "good" white/rainbow people against the "evil" black people. The final lesson of the story is that the evil Betto is really evil through-and-through, incapable of becoming good.
Another disturbing aspect of the narrative's morality is the apparent animosity toward vegetarianism, which also mirrors the Jewish/Christian/Muslim moral system: Vegans are "evil" and "self-righteous;" they "push their morality on others," "eat only tofu," and are "weak and small." The prophet Sesom teaches them about the Mounds, cow-like creatures who live in the forest and who happily give out chunks of their flesh without any apparent harm to their bodies, echoing the Biblical idea that animals were created for the purpose of being food for humans. This Mound-meat is fed to the "Miracle Machine," which then gives birth to Color Babies, who transform the "evil" Vegans into "good" Vegans.
This confused and confusing carnivorous mythology highlights the self-contradictory morality of the Cult of Color story. The Vegans are "evil" because they are "self-righteous" and "push their morality on others," but the story itself seems self-righteous and designed to push its moral judgments on the audience. The Vegans are "evil" because they see the world in black and white, but the morality of the narrative world is itself black and white, completely devoid of ambiguity or nuance. In reality, meat is mostly pink and brown, while fruits and vegetables are found in all the colors of the rainbow; in the story, it is the Vegans who lack color, and the meat that is supposed to colorize their world. The meat of the story does not fulfill its implied promise of bringing the rainbow's multiplicity of hues to a black-and-white moral world.