to rants page.
One of my initial assersions was that life, and the requirements for it, are neither good nor evil. I am in the process of redefining that. I do believe that life is, in some respect, Sacred; IF it is the duty of mankind to produce God, then Life is sacred as the path by which God is to come about, if NOT, perhaps it is just that it is moot for us to revere Life, as the root of our own physical selves, and our ability to appreciate Good.
It looks as though there will be further exploration needed on many of these vary basic functions of life, to work through how they can be seen as neither good nor evil (if that is, indeed, the case).Metabolism
It's pretty easy to think of the internal processes as neutral, although there can be moralistic overtones to the way we think of stored energy (fat). When we look at someone who is fat, or thin, often times we do feel that is sufficient cause to make judgements on them.
Growth
There is something very exciting about watching something grow, whether it's a seed germinating, or a human baby taking it's first steps. I don't know that most moralists would say it was 'good', because everyone acknowledges that it's not a choice which is made, but it is something many people respond to, yet, unchecked growth can be life-threatening, either within a life form or an ecosystem.
Excretion
The excretion and elimination of bodily wastes is, for many people, the first great taboo we encounter as children. 'Dirty' on multiple levels. Still, very few adults would try to convince us that it is Evil.
Reproduction
It's very simple. In order for life to continue to exist, it must have the capacity to create more life. Logically, it is morally neutral, but this one brings out intense, irrational reactions. 'Reproductive instincts' include a range of sexual and nurturing responses, which are inexorably linked (as in one leads naturally to the other), but never (one hopes) mingled. So far as I know, the nurturing instinct has never been actually taboo (outside of fiction - "Brave New World" comes to mind), but sexuality most certainly has. The implications of sex as morally neutral are worth exploring. The implications of nurturing as morally neutral are mind blowing. I think that here is one of the times where invoking the sacred might be appropriate.
Energy Intake
We have to eat, just as plants must absorb light. I don't think any ethical system or religion disputes that. At the same time, most, if not all, put some sort of limit or taboo on what we eat. Some of those limits are based on the recognition of animal life as superior to plant life in a cosmic sense. Some are based on moral judgements about one or more kind of food. I have a lot to say about this, and will be writing more at a later date.
Death
Religions are, in part, focused on helping us come to terms with death, and accepting it. Death causes pain, often for those who experience it and those who love them, both. The fight against death, in a specific case, or sometimes in the abstract, is often viewed as the noblest of causes, even as it is inevitably doomed to fail. I wrote my exploration of the topic before I wrote this overview, and clarified why I, personally, don't see death as Evil. Not everything which hurts or frightens us is Evil, just as not everything which is beautiful is Good.