Yes, very good! I agree. Whereas Ishmael, i propose, recognizes the same ”difference/distance” but remains a pure spectator, not succumbing to the frustration of existing in a world filled with nonsense and absurdities like leg amputating whales. He remains a mindful, even meditative (like when he stands on top of the mast on lookout and just watches the sea) witness. Maybe that is the teaching that Melville ment to give us. He lived in a very dynamic age with many upheveals and changes occuring. Maybe he meant to show us two ways to react to the absurdity of life.

I think there is no disagreement here. My calling it a "difference" is simply one level of abstraction removed from "distance" as distance implies difference.
As to what particular questions arise, that is also downstream from the fundamental realisation of the distinction between the self and the other. Which, I suppose, was the original question of this post - what is religion about in its core.

Hi, here is a reference for you! An article concerning this was recently posted on a Finnish journal for physicians. Thats how i heard of the debate.

Smajdor A & Räsänen J. 2024. Is pregnancy a disease? A normative approach. Journal of Medical Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1136/jme-2023-109651

Smajdor A & Räsänen J. 2024. Is pregnancy a disease? A normative approach. Journal of Medical Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1136/jme-2023-109651

Here!

Religion, to me, is about, and rises out of, the irreconcilability of experiencing being whatever ”I” refers to, and the simultaneous existence of the outside world that is perceived as ”different” or ”other”. From this distinction questions arise that cannot be answered leading to suffering. Many religions thus aim to reconcile this difference by denying it. Thus, ”all is one”, ”experience of self is an illusion” etc.
Fear of death is downstream from the realisation of this distinction between ”I” and ”other”.

You list the novels. But have you read the essay The Myth of Sisyphus? That's where I'd draw from to point out his ethical thinking. — Moliere

I have, and the rebel is no novel either.

Thank you for responding!

The claim I am making here is that Prof Deigh seems to suggest that Camus is making ethical arguments, whereas, to me, he is only stating a metaphysical claim. It seems to me that there is no two ways about it. Prof Deigh explicitly attributes to Camus the argument that to live with integrity, one must make a choice from the absurd perspective. To me it seems Camus is making no such arguments. He simply does not care whether anyone lives with any kind of integrity. Camus does show us how live in moderation and integrity if one has realized the absurdity of it all (in the stranger, the plague and the rebel). But that is not the same as what prof Deigh attributes to him.
Pretty hard for me to see how to read Camus and end up where prof Deigh seems to be. I might be wrong, that's why I asked!