I think I understand the terms, "One is death, and the other is life"
Rogers stands for life, because he won't stand for killing planets full of people, so Stark mindwipes him.
Stark stands for death, because Stark prepared for and had his Illuminati kill planets full of people.
Hickman said it at the start of his Avengers run, but we couldn't have understood what it meant then, (although the clues were in NA#1-3). It was the struggle between the two positions, (of the Pragmatist vs the Idealist), but we never caught a clear sight of them until the end of the story, and it became a matter of understanding the result of struggle. And it really didn't matter in the end anyway. That world where that mattered anymore was gone. Are we ever going to get a chance to confront that dilemma again? Not in any recent time. Battleworld has dumped a Captain America in Greenland, and an Iron Man in Technopolis, but their philosophies are not going to thrust against each other there. (Even in Warzones, the contest between Rogers and Stark is just going to be about the SHRA when that book starts). If Rogers and Stark again come across each other in a team capacity, that will be the time they start to formulate their positions again.
In the mean time, when New Earth finally emerges, we should be free of any of the politics that was a lead up to Hickmans run on Avengers, and a more positive and upbeat world will greet the reader when that time comes. The dark and cruel ending to the 616 Earth (and the 1610 Earth) will then become just a faint memory of how given a homogenous mix of various viewpoints, it was always ever going to be two positions at loggerheads with one another. There was no right and there was no wrong.
(And then a little of Valeria and Victor's, "Save what you can - make sure you don't lose").