[jabagigo]

I disagree with your assessment, it seems illogical. Your logic doesn't hold true in all cases, and to me it seems the case where it does isn't the current case.

The fact that inequality could exist without associated deaths doesn't mean that it currently does.

It is very possible that right now, inequality causes deaths, even if it could exist in a different context that didn't, except that's not necessarily the current context.

In our current context, it could be true that if we reduced inequality by distributing less wealth at the top and more at the bottom, that it could prevent many deaths, by providing many billions of people with the means to be mentally and physically healthy as you say.

Thus it's possible in our current context that we'd have the means for everyone to have enough wealth to be mentally and physically healthy, but that the inequality in the distribution of that wealth causes some not to have enough, and thus their premature deaths.

I still just say could, because this too is hypothetical. It is possible without the incentives of massive inequality that the wealth wouldn't be created in the first place, or that any other phenomenon would cause different outcomes.