Friedrich Nietzsche, throughout his work and, in particular, in his critique of the value of western moral values for life, in which he elaborates a typology of the master morality and slave morality, associates the creation of values to different human physiologies (active man and reactive man, man as bird of prey and man as sheep), comprehending the morality as not excluded from organic life and being against values and practices of homogenization and leveling. It follows from this a view that values alterity – what is other, different, unrelated – as a value to life, as a physiologically inherent characteristic of men and that feeds human plasticity force. Oswald de Andrade, a self-confessed reader of Nietzsche, especially in his manifestos and philosophical essays, rescues and re-elaborates the notion of anthropophagy, world view and philosophical posture in which the other feeds the transformation of the self, organically and morally (that is, as nutrition for the body, in the case of ritual in its origin, and also for the creation of new values), in which, therefore, he also values alterity as a value to life. Oswald developed his own typology, that of messianic man and anthropophagic man (patriarchy and matriarchy), proposing his analysis of the value of Western moral values for life, in which his critique of priesthood morality is very close to Nietzsche s critique of that. That one, for The German philosopher, is the strongest slave and herd morality that was developed by the western man. Among the approximations and differences, the thinkers indicate paths to think about alterity as a valuable element to human plasticity and, thus, to life, although homogenization tendencies we can identify along the History and still in the present.