The conclusions echoed the rejection of the world

[samiaseo222]

The premises of Schopenhauer were valid but which lay at the heart of the "other-wordly" religions. The destiny of man as Nietzsche saw it was to increase the objectification of the will. Other-worldly religions hindered him in achieving this by preaching the subjection of the will to a supreme will of his own creation, or more precisely of the creation of those peoples who feared they had most to lose from the rule of unfettered will.

Nietzsche "stood Schopenhauer on his head" much as Marx stood Hegel on his head. Schopenhauer admired the indulgence of animals in the simplicity of life for life's sake, but for Nietzsche, the distance of man from the simplicity of life gives man the opportunity to become something more than animal.

The Christian promise however, that man was more than phone number list animal (regardless of his merits as man), Nietzsche regarded as a fraud, since it took from him the very thing which qualified him to be something more than animal in the first place, namely his free will. Man had to prove he was more than animal. His superiority was not God- given, but won in battle, the battle of life.

These views have been popularised by the Jewish professor Peter Singer in his Practical Ethics which argues the case for euthanasia principally on the basis that the sanctity of human life is a myth. Singer rather brutally equates a new born infant with a snail insofar that neither is aware of itself as a distinct entity