>>40615506>If I can't determine if they don't understand death in a meaningful capacity, you can't say that they suffer in a meaningful capacityI can say they suffer because they react to pain and clearly experience emotional distress (just go get a pet dog and then kick it regularly and it will whimper and start avoiding you/acting depressed and become aggresive toward you eventually). Whether a living being can suffer or not isn't determined by whether they understand death otherwise it means you're saying young human children can't suffer just because they don't understand death either. Do you think torturing and killing a 5 year old is ok just because they don't understand death yet?
>Your assumption that life existing is morally good or not has no basisMy assumption that life existing is morally good is a fundamental axiom, you can say this is irrational or has no basis but it doesn't matter, it's a core belief. I believe life existing is morally good just because.
>Also your assertion about killing people in their sleep doesn't followIt does follow because while asleep people have no concept of what is happening to them in the real world or concept of death. Following your logic, killing someone in their sleep when they are not conscious is ok because life only matters/can suffer when the fear of death/awareness that they can or are going to suffer is present, which is not the case to an unconscious person.
