Anti-life philosophy

An Anti-life philosophy is any way of thinking that holds life, particularly conscious (human) life, to be:

(1) an anti-value ("Life sucks; Death rocks!") or ("Human life on Earth is the ultimate evil; it's opposite is the ultimate good"); (2) a nonvalue, or a value no better than others ("People, schmeeple, no better or worse than snakes, fleas, viruses, volcanos"); (3) a value lesser than some other, no matter "how high" a value they may place on it, something is always greater (e.g.   Society, the ecosystem, the Nation, the World, the Universe, God, Reality). NOTE: this doesn't mean that acknowledging that one of these concepts transcends and includes you (is anterior to; encompasses or contains you) makes you anti-life; you only become anti-life when you say these larger/higher concepts are HIGHER causes and/or ends-in-themselves, which require or   necessitate (or "make it alright") to forcibly sacrifice yourself and/or others for the sakes/whims (caprice) of the so    -called "higher" cause.

The first (1) type of anti-life philosophy is that which is probably held by only some of the most extreme and through-going nihilists, anti-humanists, neo-ascetics, and the vilest of religious extremists (e.g. terrorist Islamist Muslims and some cultic Biblist/Christianist Christians). It might also be held by the very most misanthropic (anti-humanistic) Deep Ecoists who advocate human extinction as the highest ethical ideal (because they think it is the only way, quickest way, most complete way, or otherwise best way to save the Earth and everything else on it from our "most evil" human selves!).

The second (2) type of this is much more commonly held by environmentalists and other liberals, but also commonly by people with no political affiliation and even some conservatives. It is essentially relativism.

The third (3) type of this is the most common type held throughout history (or at least most of the past 2000 years of it), the type especially endorsed by the medieval Christian and Muslim religions, but also perhaps still the most common view even today. At least most of these people view humans to be above the nonsentient animals and plants (and volcanos!) in the overall scheme of things, but unfortunately, they often promote inequality among humans and pit different groups against each other (e.g. their sexist views that woman should bow-down before or even be sarcrificed to men (OR vice versa!); that children should do likewise for parents (OR vice versa!); or that everyone living and already born should do likewise for unborn fetuses (UNTIL they are born, at which point they become cells of the family and servants/slaves to the parents--especially the father---and can be punished/sacrificed at the parents/church's discretion, according to scripture). Above all, they reserve the right to sacrifice ANYONE on behalf of God, Church, or Mosque!  They do not recognize humans' value or rights for their own sakes, but only God's.

Fortunately, throughout the past 500 years (esp. the last 200), there has been a gradual lessening of the most exteme adherents of this third (3) anti-life viewpoint and probably the plurality---if not quite majority--of people in modern western developed societies are somewhere in between the 2 different interpretations of this third viewpoint, the first mentioned of course being NOT an anti-life viewpoint, but an anti-solipist/pro-reality pro-life viewpoint. Also, please note that in this context, "pro-life" has little if anything to do with how antiabortionists use the term, but rather, the near-oppossite, especially similar to (but not identical) to how objectivists and neo-objectivists (Randians and quasi-Randians) use it.