and recognises nothing but the standpoint of the injured party. From henceforth the eye becomes trained to a more and more _impersonal_ valuation of the deed, even the eye of the injured party himself (though this is in the final stage of all, as has been previously remarked)--on this principle "right" and "wrong" first manifest themselves after the foundation of law (and not, as Dühring maintains, only after the act of violation). To talk of intrinsic right and intrinsic wrong is absolutely non-sensical; intrinsically, an injury, an oppression, an exploitation, an annihilation can be nothing wrong, inasmuch as life is _essentially_ (that is, in its cardinal functions) something which functions by injuring, oppressing, exploiting, and annihilating, and is absolutely inconceivable without such a character. It is necessary to make an even more serious confession:--viewed from the most advanced biological standpoint, conditions of legality can be only _exceptional conditions_, in that they are partial restrictions of the real life-will, which makes for power, and in that they are subordinated to the life-will's general end as particular means, that is, as means to create _larger_ units of strength. A legal organisation, conceived of as sovereign and universal, not as a weapon in a fight of complexes of power, but as a weapon _against_ fighting, generally something after the style of Dühring's communistic model of treating every will as equal with every other will, would be a principle _hostile to life_, a destroyer and dissolver of man, an outrage on the future of man, a symptom of fatigue, a secret cut to Nothingness.-- 12.