Death and nonexistence are equivalent for the being. They are the ground state.
While you can argue that the state itself may be equivalent, I do not see why you would not consider the process. Nonexistence does not involve experiencing anything. There is neither suffering nor joy. However, a being that dies has to live first. In life, they experience substantial suffering. So, if you were to look at the being’s existence (or lack thereof) as a whole, nonexistence is not the same as existing and dying.
Is it immoral to give somebody dinner even though you don’t have much to give them or there is a risk of it being poisoned? Is it more moral not to give them anything at all and refuse them?
This is an entirely different scenario. By denying food, you impose suffering (hunger) on an already existing being. In the scenario I am presenting (nonexistence), there is no experience and no deprivation. Only by bringing them into existence do you add the capacity to suffer. And only in the case of existence would your moral dilemma hold any validity.
It was the peak of meaning for that rock.
How is it the peak of meaning “for the rock”? If we agree that the rock is not sentient, cannot experience, and is not morally considerable, how can we conclude that it is the peak for the rock? The meaning is entirely external to the rock, and I don’t see how the absence of this external meaning matters if there is no subject to experience it.
Ethics cannot come to this conclusion because the universe didn’t care about ethics when it created life. It just happened.
I do not understand your argument here. This sounds very much like an appeal to nature. Are you making the point that all ethical conclusions must be in alignment with nature? Rape, cannibalism, and infanticide are all natural and are observed across multiple species. The universe doesn’t care about these things. Why should we care about any of them? I do not see how something being natural makes it obligatory.
While you can argue that the state itself may be equivalent, I do not see why you would not consider the process. Nonexistence does not involve experiencing anything. There is neither suffering nor joy. However, a being that dies has to live first. In life, they experience substantial suffering. So, if you were to look at the being’s existence (or lack thereof) as a whole, nonexistence is not the same as existing and dying.
This is an entirely different scenario. By denying food, you impose suffering (hunger) on an already existing being. In the scenario I am presenting (nonexistence), there is no experience and no deprivation. Only by bringing them into existence do you add the capacity to suffer. And only in the case of existence would your moral dilemma hold any validity.
How is it the peak of meaning “for the rock”? If we agree that the rock is not sentient, cannot experience, and is not morally considerable, how can we conclude that it is the peak for the rock? The meaning is entirely external to the rock, and I don’t see how the absence of this external meaning matters if there is no subject to experience it.
I do not understand your argument here. This sounds very much like an appeal to nature. Are you making the point that all ethical conclusions must be in alignment with nature? Rape, cannibalism, and infanticide are all natural and are observed across multiple species. The universe doesn’t care about these things. Why should we care about any of them? I do not see how something being natural makes it obligatory.