Anita Ganowicz-Bączyk

The main branch of traditional economics used to focus on economic and social development, and on increasing profits. This led to disregard for the scantiness of natural resources and their renewal. This article looks at the criticism of traditional economic theory by the proponents of the economics of sustainable development, most notable amongst them being the theoretician, Holger Rogall. The notion and crucial principles of the economics of sustainable development are also discussed. The proposed new paradigm in economics is strong sustainability. The theory put forward is strictly related to the idea of sustainable development and the rules of inter- and intragenerational justice and responsibility in the meaning of environmental ethics.

Anthropocentrism seems to be a fundamental notion concerning the man-nature relation. The anthropocentric attitude is largely meant to be the main cause of the ecological crisis. One can distinguish at least several stages of the process, which led to this crisis, namely: stage of Magic and Myth, Ancient Times, Middle Ages, and Modern Times. The aim of this article is to show the process of development of an anthropocentric thought in Modern European culture when the culmination of this process is observed. Among the causes of the modern worldview, one can mention e.g. the modern conception of science (worked out mainly by N. Copernicus, G. Galilei, G. Bruno, F. Bacon, I. Newton, R. Descartes), the technology development, as well as social, political and cultural changes. Both, geocentric and theocentric worldview were rejected. The secularization of European societies shifted to man’s attitude not only towards God but also is creation – nature. People began to treat nature as a cha...

Environmental ethics has been intensively developed since the 1970s and is promoted most of all by philosophers and philosophizing naturalists. Various attitudes have been adopted, differing deeply ontologically, anthropologically, and axiologically. In this article, the ethics of Edward Goldsmith are presented. Goldsmith understands the biosphere as a systemic whole, which should be treated with moral respect and responsibility by humankind. In the beginning, the notion of holism is defined and described against the background of biocentric and anthropocentric ethics. Next, the views that inspired Goldsmith’s theory are presented, i.e. A. Naess’ deep ecology, J. Lovelock and L. Margulis Gaia’s hypothesis, the views of E. Odum, W.B. Cannon and C.H. Waddington. Then the main points of biospheric ethics are presented. Finally, Goldsmith’s proposal of mental and civilizational shift is submitted. The biospheric morality, which is supported by religious norms, is explained. This type of...

Etyka środowiskowa znajduje wielu zwolenników wśród filozofujących przyrodników. Interesujący głos w tym temacie zabiera Edward Goldsmith, który na bazie Hipotezy Gai Jamesa Lovelocka zbudował etykę biosferyczną. Goldsmith krytycznie odnosi się do paradygmatu nowożytnego przyrodoznawstwa, uznając go za błędny oraz kryzysotwórczy w relacji ludzkości z całą ekosferą. Za paradygmatem tym stoi określone rozumienie postępu ludzkości oraz konkretne założenia ontologiczne, aksjologiczne i etyczne (np. darwinizm społeczny, utylitaryzm etyczny). Goldsmith nazywa etykę stojącą za tymi przekonaniami etyką technosferyczną, poddaje krytyce jej założenia i przeciwstawia jej etykę biosferyczną. Jego zdaniem, etyka sprzyjająca realizacji celów Gai była obecna w pierwotnych społecznościach ludzkich. Wymagała ona od człowieka utrzymywania porządku kosmicznego, a zarazem dobrostanu jednostki i całej społeczności, poprzez podążanie właściwą Drogą, tzn. przestrzeganie określonych obowiązków oraz zachowa...

Anthropocentrism seems to be a key notion related to the man-nature relation. Probably he is also the most controversial one in environmental ethics. The anthropocentric attitude is sometimes meant to be the main cause of the ecological crisis. One can distinguish at least several stages of the process, which led to this crisis, namely: stage of Magic and Myth, Ancient Times, Middle Ages, and Modern Times. The aim of this article is to show the process of development of an anthropocentric thought in Ancient European culture. Supposedly the critical phase for this process is the so-called Neolithic Revolution. Changes brought by this deeply influenced life of man. Not only affected the transformation of his world-view but also had an impact on the modification of society itself. Mentioned changes led among other things to the rejection of magic and mythical world-view, in which the Universe was perceived as a harmonious and friendly place to live in. A doubt appeared instead, what th...

Anthropocentrism seems to be a key notion associated with the man-nature relation. Probably it is also the most controversial one in environmental ethics. The anthropocentric attitude is sometimes meant to be the main cause of the ecological crisis. One can distinguish at least several stages of the process, which led to this crisis, namely: stage of Magic and Myth, Ancient Times, Middle Ages, and Modern Times. The aim of this article is to show the process of development of an anthropocentric thought in Medieval European culture. Cultural changes of the Middle Ages, under the influence of Christianity among other things, led to the revaluation of the ancient way of thinking. The next step towards anthropocentric attitude in philosophy was made: the importance of the human individual increased, his needs and development became more vital than society as a whole. On the other hand, an essential aspect of medieval philosophy was rejecting the earthly world and turning to the transcend...

Perceiving nature by contemporary social and economical systems, including the domination nowadays of capitalism and socialism, has led to an ecological crisis. There are at least several characteristics of traditional economical theories that make it impossible to realize the sustainable development of the anthroposphere, i.e. the view of a human being, the violation of rules of inter- and intragenerational justice, the way of valuing the environment combined with the underestimation of the significance of natural resources, the belief that technology is able to substitute all natural resources crucial to humanity, planning the short-term goals. Qe attitudes in economics appeared which demand replacing the current paradigm with a new one – that of strong sustainability. The characteristic feature of the economics of sustainable development is observing the ethical rules of inter- and intergenerational justice and responsibility.

Perceiving nature by contemporary social and economical systems, including the domination nowadays of capitalism and socialism, has led to an ecological crisis. There are at least several characteristics of traditional economical theories that make it impossible to realize the sustainable development of the anthroposphere, i.e. the view of a human being, the violation of rules of inter- and intragenerational justice, the way of valuing the environment combined with the underestimation of the significance of natural resources, the belief that technology is able to substitute all natural resources crucial to humanity, planning the short-term goals. Qe attitudes in economics appeared which demand replacing the current paradigm with a new one – that of strong sustainability. The characteristic feature of the economics of sustainable development is observing the ethical rules of inter- and intergenerational justice and responsibility.

THE MYTHICAL AND MAGIC ORIGINS OF ANTHROPOCENTRISM The aim of the article is to show, that an attitude towards nature called anthropocentrism has its origins in the primitive magic rituals or religions. Human’s perception of his place in the Universe had been changing throughout the history and firstly man probably was far from belief in his own dignity in the nature. But even though, roots of an anthropocentrism were present very early, and the most clearly in man’s beliefs according to his destiny and sense of existence. First of all, the middle eastern ancient anthropogonies show us an heterogeneous image of the man. On the one hand man is weak, mortal being, on the other hand he differs from the rest of the world and is exceptional somehow. This is connected with man’s perception of the reality in which feeling of being in the centre of the happening is natural. And consequently, the ancient inhabitants of the Middle East believed that they lived in the centre of the Universe (g...

The Ancient Sources of Anthropocentrism Anthropocentrism seems to be a key notion related to the man-nature relation. Probably he is also the most controversial one in environmental ethics. The anthropocentric attitude is sometimes meant to be the main cause of the ecological crisis. One can distinguish at least several stages of the process, which led to this crisis, namely: stage of Magic and Myth, Ancient Times, Middle Ages and Modern Times. The aim of this article is to show the process of development of an anthropocentric thought in the Ancient European culture. Supposedly the critical phase for this process is so-called Neolithic Revolution. Changes brought by this deeply influenced life of man. Not only affected transformation of his world-view but also had an impact on modification of society itself. Mentioned changes led among other things to the rejection of magic and mythical world-view, in which Universe was perceived as harmonious and friendly place to live in. A doubt ...

The Medieval Sources of Anthropocentrism Anthropocentrism seems to be a key notion associated with the man-nature relation. Probably it is also the most controversial one in environmental ethics. The anthropocentric attitude is sometimes meant to be the main cause of the ecological crisis. One can distinguish at least several stages of the process, which led to this crisis, namely: stage of Magic and Myth, Ancient Times, Middle Ages and Modern Times. The aim of this article is to show the process of development of an anthropocentric thought in the Medieval European culture. Cultural changes of the Middle Ages, under the influence of Christianity among others things, led to the revaluation of the ancient way of thinking. The next step towards anthropocentric attitude in philosophy was made: importance of the human individual increased, his needs and development became more vital than society as a whole. On the other hand, an essential aspect of medieval philosophy was rejecting the e...

Z destrukcyjnego wpływu niszczenia środowiska na człowieka zaczęto sobie zdawać sprawę dopiero na początku lat 60. XX wieku (D. Brower, R. Carson, G. Hardin). Wśród myślicieli, których refleksje bezpośrednio poprzedziły powstanie etyki środowiskowej jako samodzielnej dyscypliny filozoficznej, wymienić należy: H.D. Thoreau, J. Muira, A. Leopolda i A. Schweitzera. Etyka środowiskowa sensu stricto narodziła się w latach 70. XX wieku w USA. Należy tu wymienić wystąpienia następujących autorów: J. Cobb, W. Blackstone, J. Feinberg i Ch. Stone, A. Næss, R. Sylvan, J. Passmore, P. Singer, H. Rolston III, J. Rodman, G. Sessions, K.E. Goodpaster. Równolegle V. R. Potter II wypracował bioetykę globalną. W 1979 r. E. Hargrove założył pierwsze naukowe czasopismo tematyczne Environmental Ethics.
Dotychczas wykrystalizowały się trzy główne nurty etyki środowiskowej: antropocentryczny, biocentryczny i ekocentryczny. Różnice między nimi są uwarunkowane koncepcją przyrody oraz antropologią.

Niniejsze opracowanie ma na celu wykazanie, że - wbrew głosom ekologizującym myśl Karola Marksa - jego filozofia kontynuuje wezwanie do tworzenia dobrobytu narodów na drodze bezwzględnego wykorzystania przyrody i usprawiedliwia postęp rozumiany w kategoriach imperialistycznego antropocentrycznego podporządkowania przyrody człowiekowi, prowadząc jednocześnie do dalszego pogłębienia poczucia wyobcowania człowieka z przyrody i zaniku jakiegokolwiek respektu wobec niej.

Implementation of the modern postulate of scientific and technical progress is generally considered the main cause of the ecological crisis. This study aims to show that, despite some tendencies to ecologize Karl Marx's thought, his philosophy continues to call for the well-being of nations through ruthless exploitation of nature and it justifies progress understood in terms of imperialist anthropocentric subordination of nature to man, thus contributing to the further deepening of the feeling of alienation from nature and disappearance of any respect for it. Abstrakt Za zasadniczą przyczynę kryzysu ekologicznego uznaje się realizację nowożytnego postulatu postępu naukowo-technicznego.

Implementation of the idea of scientific and technological advancement is perceived as the fundamental cause of the ecological crisis. That idea was promoted among others by Auguste Comte. This article discusses positivist view on the place of human in nature and clarifies to what extent it translated into a deepening of the alienation of human from nature. The positivist position is strongly anthropocentric, which manifests in the continuation of Baconian recommendations for subordinating nature to human needs. Positivism developed a scientific method which contributed to the enormous leap of civilization, but it turned out to be a deeply crisis-generating for human relationship with nature.
Za zasadniczą przyczynę kryzysu ekologicznego uznaje się realizację nowożytnego postulatu postępu naukowo-technicznego. Ideę tę promował m.in. August Comte. Artykuł podejmuje próbę przedyskutowania pozytywistycznych zapatrywań na miejsce człowieka w przyrodzie oraz wyjaśnienia, w jakim stopniu przełożyły się one na pogłębienie alienacji człowieka z przyrody. Stanowisko pozytywistyczne jest silnie antropocentryczne, co przejawia się w kontynuowaniu Baconowskich zaleceń podporządkowywania przyrody potrzebom człowieka. Pozytywizm rozwinął metodę naukową, przyczyniając się do ogromnego skoku cywilizacyjnego ludzkości, ale okazał się dla relacji człowieka z przyrodą głęboko kryzysogenny.

Etyka środowiskowa znajduje wielu zwolenników wśród filozofujących przyrodników. Interesujący głos w tym temacie zabiera Edward Goldsmith, który na bazie Hipotezy Gai Jamesa Lovelocka zbudował etykę biosferyczną. Goldsmith krytycznie odnosi się do paradygmatu nowożytnego przyrodoznawstwa, uznając go za błędny oraz kryzysotwórczy w relacji ludzkości z całą ekosferą. Za paradygmatem tym stoi określone rozumienie postępu ludzkości oraz konkretne założenia ontologiczne, aksjologiczne i etyczne (np. darwinizm społeczny, utylitaryzm etyczny). Goldsmith nazywa etykę stojącą za tymi przekonaniami etyką technosferyczną, poddaje krytyce jej założenia i przeciwstawia jej etykę biosferyczną. Jego zdaniem, etyka sprzyjająca realizacji celów Gai była obecna w pierwotnych społecznościach ludzkich. Wymagała ona od człowieka utrzymywania porządku kosmicznego, a zarazem dobrostanu jednostki i całej społeczności, poprzez podążanie właściwą Drogą, tzn. przestrzeganie określonych obowiązków oraz zachowań, szczególnie w obszarze rytuałów i życia religijnego. Dlatego, jak przekonuje Goldsmith, skutecznie chronić porządek ekosfery można wyłącznie w sposób religijny. Nie ma, jego zdaniem, bardziej niemoralnego przedsięwzięcia niż postęp, który wiedzie systematycznie do zastąpienia biosfery przez technosferę. Rozwój oparty o technikę prowadzi w sposób nieunikniony do destrukcji. Jeśli chcemy przetrwać jako gatunek – musimy powrócić do etyki biosferycznej.

W ramach etyki środowiskowej wyróżnić można kilka nurtów. W ramach niniejszego opracowania uwaga skupia się na omówieniu sporu dwóch stanowisk: antropocentrycznego i biocentrycznego oraz ukazaniu doniosłego znaczenia jego rozwiązania dla skuteczności edukacji ekologicznej. Przeciwstawieniu i analizie poddane są poglądy dwojga polskich filozofów i etyków środowiskowych: Tadeusza Ślipki i Zdzisławy Piątek. Oba stanowiska wprowadzają wartościowe wskazówki dla etycznego uregulowania relacji człowieka z przyrodą. Dlatego artykuł ukazuje ich mocne strony, które dobrze uzasadniona etyka środowiskowa powinna zawsze brać pod uwagę. Dyskusji poddaje też te poglądy, które wymagają rewizji. Na tej podstawie zostają zaproponowane postulaty do uwzględnienia zarówno w ramach etyki środowiskowej, jak i edukacji ekologicznej.
Prezentowany w tekście spór o antropocentryzm w etyce środowiskowej pokazuje zasadniczą rolę przyjmowanego systemu wartości dla relacji człowieka z przyrodą. Stanowi on rdzeń świadomości ekologicznej. Sama wiedza nie zmienia postępowania człowieka. Niezbędna jest odpowiednio silna motywacja. Ta zaś swe źródła czerpie z doświadczenia życiowego, poczucia wartości, odpowiedzialności, piękna, sprawiedliwości, z wrażliwości, empatyczności, wiedzy i zdolności przewidywania. Motywacja wypływa z całej osoby ludzkiej. Całej osoby powinna więc dotyczyć edukacja i wychowanie do środowiska.

Główna gałąź tradycyjnej ekonomii koncentrowała się na rozwoju gospodarczym i społecznym oraz na zwiększaniu zysków. Doprowadziło to do zaniedbania wyczerpywalności zasobów naturalnych i możliwości ich odnowy. W artykule przedstawiono krytykę teorii tradycyjnej ekonomii przez zwolenników ekonomii zrównoważonego rozwoju, głównie przez jej teoretyka - Holgera Rogalla. Omówiono także pojęcie i kluczowe zasady ekonomii zrównoważonego rozwoju. Proponowanym nowym paradygmatem ekonomicznym jest silny zrównoważony rozwój. Wspomniana teoria jest ściśle związana z ideą zrównoważonego rozwoju oraz regułami między- i wewnątrzpokoleniowej sprawiedliwości i odpowiedzialności zgodnie ze sposobem ich rozumienia w etyce środowiskowej.

Większość badaczy postrzega negatywnie postawę antropocentryczną, ponieważ ich zdaniem prowadzi ona do uzasadnienia zagrażających środowisku ludzkich zachowań. Sytuacja ta spowodowała pojawienie się silnych roszczeń do innego i bardziej adekwatnego stosunku do natury. Etyka środowiskowa pojawiła się jako odpowiedź na te wymagania. Tadeusz Ślipko i Zdzisława Piątek są znamienitymi polskimi filozofami, którzy przedstawiają pomysły na rozwiązywanie problemów ekologicznych. Niemniej jednak rodzaje etyki środowiskowej, za którymi opowiada się tych dwoje teoretyków, są ze sobą w istocie sprzeczne. Jednocześnie oba stanowiska mają punkty styczne i proponują cenne rozwiązania. Celem książki jest omówienie propozycji obojga autorów i zbadanie, czy te dwie postawy mogłyby zostać połączone w jedną etykę środowiskową w celu znalezienia lepszych rozwiązań dla moralności i tym samym rozwiązania problemów środowiskowych. Osiągnięcie tego celu wydaje się obecnie kluczowe, ponieważ kryzys środowiskowy staje się coraz poważniejszy ze względu na jego coraz większy zasięg. Dlatego konieczna jest natychmiastowa zmiana sposobu myślenia, zarówno w wymiarze indywidualnym, jak i publicznym.
The Debate over Environmental Ethics 2009. WAM Publishing House, Kraków, pp. 310. The research over anthropocentrism is in its infancy. Most researchers perceive it negatively, as it leads to justification of human behaviour that endangers the environment. This situation resulted in the emergence of strong claims for a different and more adequate attitude towards nature. An environmental ethics appeared as a reply to these requirements. Tadeusz Ślipko and Zdzisława Piątek are the main Polish thinkers who provide some ideas to deal with ecological problems. Nonetheless, the types of environmental ethics which the two theorists are in favour of are contradictory. They both have some points in common and provide valuable solutions. The purpose of this thesis is to discuss these points and to investigate if these two attitudes could be combined into one environmental ethic in order to find better solutions for morality, and by means of this solve environmental problems. Achieving this a...

Postrzeganie przyrody we współczesnych systemach społecznych i ekonomicznych, w tym w dominującym obecnie kapitalizmie i socjalizmie, doprowadziły do kryzysu ekologicznego. Istnieje co najmniej kilka cech tradycyjnych teorii ekonomicznych, które uniemożliwiają realizację zrównoważonego rozwoju antroposfery, tj. antropologia, pogwałcenie zasad sprawiedliwości międzypokoleniowej i wewnątrzpokoleniowej, sposób wyceny środowiska w połączeniu z niedoszacowaniem znaczenia zasobów naturalnych, przekonanie, że technologia jest w stanie zastąpić wszystkie zasoby naturalne kluczowe dla ludzkości, planowanie celów wyłącznie krótkoterminowych. Pojawiły się stanowiska ekonomiczne, które domagają się zastąpienia obecnego paradygmatu nowym - silnym zrównoważeniem. Charakterystyczną cechą ekonomii zrównoważonego rozwoju jest przestrzeganie zasad etycznych sprawiedliwości i odpowiedzialności międzypokoleniowej i wewnątrzpokoleniowej.

Towards the Economics of Sustainable Development: Perceiving the nature by the contemporary social and economical systems, including dominating nowadays capitalism and socialism, led to the ecological crisis. There are at least several characteristics of traditional economical theories that make impossible the realisation of sustainable development of anthroposphere, i.e. the view of human being, the violation of rules of inter- and intragenerational justice, the way of valuating the environment combined with the underestimating of the significance of the natural resources, the belief that technology is able to substitute all natural resources crucial for humanity, planning the short-terms goals. The attitudes in economics appeared which demand replacing the current paradigm by the new one – the strong sustainability. The characteristic feature of the economics of sustainable development is observing the ethical rules of inter- and intragenerational justice and responsibility.

Antropocentryzm wydaje się być podstawowym pojęciem dotyczącym relacji człowiek-natura. Postawa antropocentryczna w dużej mierze ma być główną przyczyną kryzysu ekologicznego. Można wyróżnić co najmniej kilka etapów procesu, które doprowadziły do tego kryzysu, a mianowicie: etap magii i mitu, czasy starożytne, średniowiecze i czasy współczesne. Celem artykułu jest ukazanie procesu rozwoju myśli antropocentrycznej we współczesnej kulturze europejskiej, kiedy to obserwuje się kulminację tego procesu.
Wśród przyczyn współczesnego światopoglądu można wymienić np. nowożytną koncepcję nauki, rozwój technologii, a także zmiany społeczne, polityczne i kulturowe.
Na współczesne spojrzenie na przyrodę i człowieka wpłynęły nie tylko teorie mechanistyczne i materialistyczne zmierzające do podporządkowania natury człowiekowi (G. Bruno, F. Bacon, R. Descartes), ale także poglądy filozoficzne, które z jednej strony wykluczały człowieka z natury (I. Kant), a z drugiej - podejmowały próby „powrotu” człowieka do natury (J.J. Rousseau, F.W.J. Schelling).


The Modern Sources of Anthropocentrism. Part two
Anthropocentrism seems to be a fundamental notion concerning the man-nature relation. The anthropocentric attitude is largely meant to be the main cause of the ecological crisis. One can distinguish at least several stages of the process, which led to this crisis, namely: stage of Magic and Myth, Ancient Times, Middle Ages and Modern Times. The aim of this article is to show the process of development of an anthropocentric thought in the Modern European culture, when the culmination of this process is observed.
Among the causes of the modern worldview one can mention e.g. the modern conception of science, the technology development, as well as social, political and cultural changes.
Contemporary view on nature and man was influenced not only by mechanistic and materialistic theories tending to subordinate nature to man (G. Bruno, F. Bacon, R. Descartes) but also by philosophical views which on the one hand excluded man from nature (I. Kant) and on the other made attempts to restore man to nature (J. J. Rousseau, F. W. J. Schelling).

Tekst opublikowany w: Ganowicz Anita, Kształtowanie zachowań względem środowiska przez kulturę, w: J. W. Czartoszewski (red.), Konflikty społeczno-ekologiczne, seria Chrześcijaństwo i Edukacja Ekologiczna, cz. 5, Warszawa 2003, s. 153-167.

Kultura, choć bierze swój początek z ludzkiej biologii i ma w dużym stopniu znaczenie przystosowawcze, jest również tym czynnikiem, który pozwala człowiekowi tak kształtować swoją świadomość i swoje postawy, że to, co wypłynęło z jego naturalnego bytowania w przyrodzie i doprowadziło poniekąd do jej degradacji, może zostać zmodyfikowane przez ludzki umysł i zmysł moralny, przez poczucie piękna i odpowiedzialności, i doprowadzić człowieka do życia zgodnego z ekonomiką przyrody, respektującego prawo wszystkich istot żywych do istnienia, a poprzez to – swoje własne prawo do godnego istnienia i życia.
Człowiek musi dojrzeć do decyzji o zaprzestaniu bezsensownej i destrukcyjnej dla niego samego walki i zacząć traktować z szacunkiem (potrzebną mu ostatecznie do przetrwania) przyrodę. Powinien znowu odnosić się do niej jak do swoistego partnera, i odnaleźć na nowo swoje miejsce w przyrodzie. Jest to rzeczywiście prawdziwe wyzwanie dla organizacji i osób działających na rzecz podnoszenia świadomości ekologicznej oraz szerzenia idei ochrony środowiska. Konieczne jest rozpowszechnienie w społeczeństwie postaw proekolo-gicznych i wiedzy dotyczącej przyrody – przynajmniej dla jego własnego, pragmatycznie rozumianego, dobra.

Antropocentryzm wydaje się być podstawowym pojęciem dotyczącym relacji człowiek-przyroda. Postawa antropocentryczna w dużej mierze ma być główną przyczyną kryzysu ekologicznego. Można wyróżnić co najmniej kilka etapów procesu, które doprowadziły do tego kryzysu: etap magiczno-mityczny, starożytność, średniowiecze i nowożytność. Celem artykułu jest ukazanie procesu rozwoju myśli antropocentrycznej we współczesnej kulturze europejskiej, w której dochodzi do kulminacji postawy antropocentrycznej.
Wśród przyczyn współczesnego światopoglądu można wymienić np. nowożytną koncepcję nauki (opracowaną głównie przez M. Kopernika, G. Galilei, G. Bruno, F. Bacona, I. Newtona, R. Descartesa), rozwój technologii, a także zmiany społeczne, polityczne i kulturowe. Geocentryczny i teocentryczny światopogląd zostały odrzucone.
Sekularyzacja społeczeństw europejskich zmieniła stosunek człowieka nie tylko do Boga, ale także do jego stworzenia - przyrody. Ludzie zaczęli traktować ją jako wyzwanie i materiał. Boga-Stwórcę zastąpił człowiek-konstruktor. Pojawił się nowy rodzaj antropocentryzmu, który próbował znaleźć odpowiedź na podstawowe pytania w samym człowieku. Doprowadziło to do zanegowania ścisłej zależności ludzkości od przyrody i skłonności do podporządkowania jej człowiekowi. Poznanie przyrody zaczęło służyć wyłącznie jako środek dla celów ludzkości. Dla człowieka obowiązkiem stało się zdominowanie przyrody, którą odtąd postrzegano jako zespół praw matematycznych, pozbawiony wartości mechanizm determinowany prawami fizyki.
Na współczesne spojrzenie na przyrodę i człowieka wpłynęły również poglądy filozoficzne, które z jednej strony wykluczały człowieka z natury (I. Kant), a z drugiej podejmowały próby „powrotu” człowieka do natury (J.J. Rousseau, F.W.J. Schelling).


Anthropocentrism seems to be a fundamental notion concerning the man-nature relation. The anthropocentric attitude is largely meant to be the main cause of the ecological crisis. One can distinguish at least several stages of the process, which led to this crisis, namely: stage of Magic and Myth, Ancient Times, Middle Ages and Modern Times. The aim of this article is to show the process of development of an anthropocentric thought in the Modern European culture, when the culmination of this process is observed.
Among the causes of the modern worldview one can mention e.g. the modern conception of science (worked out mainly by N. Copernicus, G. Galilei, G. Bruno, F. Bacon, I. Newton, R. Descartes), the technology development, as well as social, political and cultural changes. Both, geocentric and theocentric worldview were rejected.
The secularization of European societies shifted man’s attitude not only towards God, but also his creation – nature. People began to treat nature as a challenge and material. God-Creator was replaced by man-designer. A new type of anthropocentrism appeared, which tried to find the answer to the fundamental questions in the human being himself. This resulted in the negation of a strict dependence of mankind on nature and in tendency to subordination nature to man. The cognition of nature served then as a mean for the sake of mankind only. Man was obliged even to dominate nature which was viewed as a complex of mathematical laws, a value-free mechanism determined by laws of nature.
Contemporary view on nature and man was influenced also by philosophical views which on the one hand excluded man from nature (I. Kant) and on the other made attempts to restore man to nature (J. J. Rousseau, F. W. J. Schelling).

Główna gałąź tradycyjnej ekonomii koncentrowała się na rozwoju gospodarczym i społecznym oraz na zwiększaniu zysków. Doprowadziło to do zaniedbania wyczerpywalności zasobów naturalnych i możliwości ich odnowy. W artykule przedstawiono krytykę teorii tradycyjnej ekonomii przez zwolenników ekonomii zrównoważonego rozwoju, głównie przez jej teoretyka - Holgera Rogalla. Omówiono także pojęcie i kluczowe zasady ekonomii zrównoważonego rozwoju. Proponowanym nowym paradygmatem ekonomicznym jest silny zrównoważony rozwój. Wspomniana teoria jest ściśle związana z ideą zrównoważonego rozwoju oraz regułami między- i wewnątrzpokoleniowej sprawiedliwości i odpowiedzialności zgodnie ze sposobem ich rozumienia w etyce środowiskowej.


The main branch of traditional economics used to focuse on the economical and social development, and on increasing profits. This led to neglecting the scantiness of natural resources and their renewal. In this article presented is criticism of traditional economics theory by the proponents of economics of sustainable development, mainly by its theoretician – Holger Rogall. The notion and crucial principles of economics of sustainable development are also discussed. The proposed new paradigm in economics is strong sustainability. Mentioned theory is strictly related to the idea of sustainable development and the rules of inter- and intragenerational justice and responsibility in the meaning of environmental ethics.

The aim of the article is to present the achievements of contemporary genetic engineering, as well as the hopes for its future use for the benefit of humanity. The author discusses the difference of approach between traditional breeding and culture and modern biotechnology in their attempts at achieving better and higher yields. Genetic engineering arouses expectations especially in the area of food production, pharmaceutical industry, medicine, or environmental protection, however, it also causes considerable concern, such as adopting the reductionist paradigm in the approach to the phenomenon of life, or the fact that the methods of genetic engineering are still imperfect, which very often (too often) makes the results of their use simply unpredictable. This means, that in a biotech laboratory, it is not always possible to achieve the same results, even if the same method is used in an experiment carried out under the same conditions, which is a basic requirement set for any scientific method and by the laws of nature. The article postulates the need for conducting long-term research in order to ascertain that the products of genetic engineering are safe for the health and welfare of both people and their environment.

The aim of this paper is to sketch the ethical background of the idea of sustainable development. The author explains the anthropocentric character of the discussed principle and clarifies moral rules necessary for its realization (e.g. intergenerational, intragenerational and interspecies justice, common good, responsibility). A significant premise for providing the present argumentation is the fact of noticeable changes taking place in prioritizing the goals of sustainable development over the last decades that led to the formulation of its contemporary meaning. That fact, in correlation with gradually slowing tempo of reaching the accepted goals of environmental, social and economic development, prove that the anthropocentric hierarchy of values is not sufficient to heal the human-nature relationships. It is essential to adopt a different perspective of nature which would allow to appreciate its intrinsic value and provide it with proper care for its own sake.

Artykuł prezentuje etykę środowiskową jako dyscyplinę filozoficzną. Omawia główne nurty etyki środowiskowej (antropocentryzm, biocentryzm i ekocentryzm, holizm). Następnie stara się przedstawić metodologię tej dziedziny: cele, metody, zadania, jak również kryteria oceny oraz trudności teoretyczne i praktyczne, stanowiące wyzwanie dla teoretyków etyki środowiskowej. Zarysowane są też kluczowe dla etyki środowiskowej zagadnienia (problematyka uznania przyrody za przedmiot moralności oraz sposoby wartościowania przyrody).

Anthropocentrism seems to be a fundamental notion concerning the man-nature relation. The anthropocentric attitude is largely meant to be the main cause of the ecological crisis. One can distinguish at least several stages of the process, which led to this crisis, namely: stage of Magic and Myth, Ancient Times, Middle Ages and Modern Times. The aim of this article is to show the process of development of an anthropocentric thought in the Modern European culture, when the culmination of this process is observed.
Among the causes of the modern worldview one can mention e.g. the modern conception of science (worked out mainly by N. Copernicus, G. Galilei, G. Bruno, F. Bacon, I. Newton, R. Descartes), the technology development, as well as social, political and cultural changes. Both, geocentric and theocentric worldview were rejected.
The secularization of European societies shifted man’s attitude not only towards God, but also his creation – nature. People began to treat nature as a challenge and material. God-Creator was replaced by man-designer. A new type of anthropocentrism appeared, which tried to find the answer to the fundamental questions in the human being himself. This resulted in the negation of a strict dependence of mankind on nature and in tendency to subordination nature to man. The cognition of nature served then as a mean for the sake of mankind only. Man was obliged even to dominate nature which was viewed as a complex of mathematical laws, a value-free mechanism determined by laws of nature.
Contemporary view on nature and man was influenced also by philosophical views which on the one hand excluded man from nature (I. Kant) and on the other made attempts to restore man to nature (J. J. Rousseau, F. W. J. Schelling).

Anthropocentrism seems to be a fundamental notion concerning the man-nature relation. The anthropocentric attitude is largely meant to be the main cause of the ecological crisis. One can distinguish at least several stages of the process, which led to this crisis, namely: stage of Magic and Myth, Ancient Times, Middle Ages and Modern Times. The aim of this article is to show the process of development of an anthropocentric thought in the Modern European culture, when the culmination of this process is observed.
Among the causes of the modern worldview one can mention e.g. the modern conception of science, the technology development, as well as social, political and cultural changes.
Contemporary view on nature and man was influenced not only by mechanistic and materialistic theories tending to subordinate nature to man (G. Bruno, F. Bacon, R. Descartes) but also by philosophical views which on the one hand excluded man from nature (I. Kant) and on the other made attempts to restore man to nature (J. J. Rousseau, F. W. J. Schelling).

Anthropocentrism seems to be a key notion associated with the man-nature relation. Probably it is also the most controversial one in environmental ethics. The anthropocentric attitude is sometimes meant to be the main cause of the ecological crisis. One can distinguish at least several stages of the process, which led to this crisis, namely: stage of Magic and Myth, Ancient Times, Middle Ages and Modern Times. The aim of this article is to show the process of development of an anthropocentric thought in the Medieval European culture.
Cultural changes of the Middle Ages, under the influence of Christianity among others things, led to the revaluation of the ancient way of thinking. The next step towards anthropocentric attitude in philosophy was made: importance of the human individual increased, his needs and development became more vital than society as a whole. On the other hand, an essential aspect of medieval philosophy was rejecting the earthly world and turning to the transcendental one. One can distinguish three currents of medieval thought, which unlikely understood the meaning of the world and man as well as the way of cognition of the reality. These are mysticism, rationalism and empiricism.
Mysticism negated both the value of nature and man as accidental entities. Nonetheless, it elevated man above other creatures. Rationalism  assigned the man a central position in nature, for only human being among the accidental material entities is endowed with intellect and grace of faith., On the other hand, empiricism enhanced both the nature (as the subject of cognition and exploitation) and man (as a rational being, who has some extraordinary abilities to use environment to satisfy his needs).
The process of drawing away from the holistic view on nature, of its desacralisation and of tending towards controlling it started just in the Middle Ages. In the following ages antiteleologism developed in philosophy, which contributed to the growth of mechanism and rejecting of the inherent value of nature in the Modern Times.

Anthropocentrism seems to be a key notion related to the man-nature relation. Probably he is also the most controversial one in environmental ethics. The anthropocentric attitude is sometimes meant to be the main cause of the ecological crisis. One can distinguish at least several stages of the process, which led to this crisis, namely: stage of Magic and Myth, Ancient Times, Middle Ages and Modern Times. The aim of this article is to show the process of development of an anthropocentric thought in the Ancient European culture.
Supposedly the critical phase for this process is so-called Neolithic Revolution. Changes brought by this deeply influenced life of man. Not only affected transformation of his world-view but also had an impact on modification of society itself. Mentioned changes led among other things to the rejection of magic and mythical world-view, in which Universe was perceived as harmonious and friendly place to live in. A doubt appeared instead, what the place of man in world really is. This questions reflected in philosophical views of that time.
To sum up, the originated by Ancient Greek philosophers outlook on nature, in which nature was recognized as a living organism and a man as an immanent part of it, had been gradually dropped out. It appeared that man falls outside the mechanical laws of nature, because he is able to understand them and use this knowledge for his own goals (Democritus), man’s soul makes him transcend nature and dominate it (Socrates), man’s existence is purposeful, he is superior to other material beings as a crown of nature and the most complex and perfect being (Aristotle). This process led to a recognition of an objective existence of the world, which in fact is independent from a human cognition. Ultimately, this resulted in an objectification of nature as an object of man’s cognition and research. Nature was then gradually put in opposition to man – the subject of cognition.

The aim of the article is to show, that an attitude towards nature called anthropocentrism has its origins in the primitive magic rituals or religions. Human’s perception of his place in the Universe had been changing throughout the history and firstly man probably was far from belief in his own dignity in the nature. But even though, roots of an anthropocentrism were present very early, and the most clearly in man’s beliefs according to his destiny and sense of existence.
First of all, the middle eastern ancient anthropogonies show us an heterogeneous image of the man. On the one hand man is weak, mortal being, on the other hand he differs from the rest of the world and is exceptional somehow. This is connected with man’s perception of the reality in which feeling of being in the centre of the happening is natural. And consequently, the ancient inhabitants of the Middle East believed that they lived in the centre of the Universe (geocentrism).
Next characteristic of the ancient religions is that gods and human beings were very alike. Furthermore, people despite their respect to nature could be very proud and they acted as if they had any power over the weather conditions. Moreover, they interpreted severe disasters as some kind of punishment for their sins. Such an attitude suggests that from the beginning of their history people were very anthropocentric.

The main branch of traditional economics used to focuse on the economical and social development, and on increasing profits. This led to neglecting the scantiness of natural resources and their renewal. In this article presented is criticism of traditional economics theory by the proponents of economics of sustainable development, mainly by its theoretician – Holger Rogall. The notion and crucial principles of economics of sustainable development are also discussed. The proposed new paradigm in economics is strong sustainability. Mentioned theory is strictly related to the idea of sustainable development and the rules of inter- and intragenerational justice and responsibility in the meaning of environmental ethics.

Perceiving the nature by the contemporary social and economical systems, including dominating nowadays capitalism and socialism, led to the ecological crisis. There are at least several characteristics of traditional economical theories that make impossible the realisation of sustainable development of anthroposphere, i.e. the view of human being, the violation of rules of inter- and intragenerational justice, the way of valuating the environment combined with the underestimating of the significance of the natural resources, the belief that technology is able to substitute all natural resources crucial for humanity, planning the short-terms goals. The attitudes in economics appeared which demand replacing the current paradigm by the new one – the strong sustainability. The characteristic feature of the economics of sustainable development is observing the ethical rules of inter- and intragenerational justice and responsibility.

Celem niniejszego opracowania jest prezentacja etyki środowiskowej proponowanej przez Edwarda Goldsmitha (1928-2009), brytyjsko-francuskiego przyrodnika, pisarza i filozofa. Goldsmith pojmuje biosferę jako całość systemową, którą człowiek powinien traktować w sposób moralny, z należnym respektem oraz odpowiedzialnością. W artykule zdefiniowane zostaje pojęcie holizmu oraz wyjaśniona zostaje specyfika tego ujęcia przyrody na tle etyk środowiskowych biocentrycznych i antropocentrycznych. Zostają też zaprezentowane poglądy, które zainspirowały powstanie teorii Goldsmitha (A. Naess, J. Lovelock, L. Margulis, E. Odum, W.B. Cannon, C.H. Waddington). Następnie przestawione zostają główne założenia etyki biosferycznej oraz związana z nimi propozycja koniecznej i radykalnej zmiany mentalnej i cywilizacyjnej. Wyjaśnione zostaje pojęcie moralności biosferycznej, która swoje ugruntowanie i uzasadnienie znajduje w systemach norm i wartości religijnych. Właśnie ten rodzaj moralności, zdaniem Goldsmitha, ma pozwolić ludzkości na osiągnięcie właściwej Drogi rozwoju.

Większość badaczy postrzega negatywnie postawę antropocentryczną, ponieważ ich zdaniem prowadzi ona do uzasadnienia zagrażających środowisku ludzkich zachowań. Sytuacja ta spowodowała pojawienie się silnych roszczeń do innego i bardziej adekwatnego stosunku do natury. Etyka środowiskowa pojawiła się jako odpowiedź na te wymagania. Tadeusz Ślipko i Zdzisława Piątek są znamienitymi polskimi filozofami, którzy przedstawiają pomysły na rozwiązywanie problemów ekologicznych. Niemniej jednak rodzaje etyki środowiskowej, za którymi opowiada się tych dwoje teoretyków, są ze sobą w istocie sprzeczne. Jednocześnie oba stanowiska mają punkty styczne i proponują cenne rozwiązania. Celem książki jest omówienie propozycji obojga autorów i zbadanie, czy te dwie postawy mogłyby zostać połączone w jedną etykę środowiskową w celu znalezienia lepszych rozwiązań dla moralności i tym samym rozwiązania problemów środowiskowych. Osiągnięcie tego celu wydaje się obecnie kluczowe, ponieważ kryzys środowiskowy staje się coraz poważniejszy ze względu na jego coraz większy zasięg. Dlatego konieczna jest natychmiastowa zmiana sposobu myślenia, zarówno w wymiarze indywidualnym, jak i publicznym.

The research over anthropocentrism is in its infancy. Most researchers perceive it negatively, as it leads to justification of human behaviour that endangers the environment. This situation resulted in the emergence of strong claims for a different and more adequate attitude towards nature. An environmental ethics appeared as a reply to these requirements. Tadeusz Ślipko and Zdzisława Piątek are the main Polish thinkers who provide some ideas to deal with ecological problems. Nonetheless, the types of environmental ethics which the two theorists are in favour of are contradictory. They both have some points in common and provide valuable solutions. The purpose of this thesis is to discuss these points and to investigate if these two attitudes could be combined into one environmental ethic in order to find better solutions for morality, and by means of this solve environmental problems. Achieving this aim seems to be crucial nowadays, for the environmental crisis becomes more severe due to ever increasing and ever spreading. Therefore an immediate change of both particular and public way of thinking is required.

The Debate over Environmental Ethics
2009. WAM Publishing House, Kraków, pp. 310.
Abstract
The research over anthropocentrism is in its infancy. Most researchers perceive it negatively, as it leads to justification of human behaviour that endangers the environment. This situation resulted in the emergence of strong claims for a different and more adequate attitude towards nature. An environmental ethics appeared as a reply to these requirements. Tadeusz Ślipko and Zdzisława Piątek are the main Polish thinkers who provide some ideas to deal with ecological problems. Nonetheless, the types of environmental ethics which the two theorists are in favour of are contradictory. They both have some points in common and provide valuable solutions. The purpose of this thesis is to discuss these points and to investigate if these two attitudes could be combined into one environmental ethic in order to find better solutions for morality, and by means of this solve environmental problems. Achieving this aim seems to be crucial nowadays, for the environmental crisis becomes more severe due to ever increasing and ever spreading. Therefore an immediate change of both particular and public way of thinking is required.
The thesis consists of three chapters. Each of them discusses a different aspect of anthropocentrism. The first chapter presents the subject of the discussion by pointing out the roots of anthropocentrism, defining the meaning of this notion and presentation of sides of the debate (weak anthropocentric and biocentric).
In the section 1.1. the notion of ‘anthropocentrism’ is considered. There are many definitions of this word in the philosophical literature. The most general definition says that anthropocentrism (from Greek ánthropos – man, and kéntron – centre) is an outlook on the world according to which humans are in the centre of existence, cognition and valuation. In philosophy one can find several types of anthropocentrism. For instance, ontological, epistemological, subjective (Piątek distinguishes two levels of subjective anthropocentrism: species a. and individual a.), axiological, cosmological, finalistic, ethical. In environmental ethics one differentiates between weak and strong anthropocentrism. According to weak anthropocentrism, vital needs of human species are important and are to be maintained. On the other hand, the biodiversity of ecosystems is valuable and crucial for humans who are their integral but exceptional part. Strong anthropocentrism claims that human species is superior to other living beings, which do not have intrinsic value. Furthermore, people have a legal right to use those beings instrumentally not taking into account their goodness or ignoring what is good for them.
There is one feature of anthropocentrism which is particularly of interest. Namely world-view character of these various kinds of anthropocentrism. Ontological, epistemological, ethical anthropocentrism as well as cosmological and finalistic anthropocentrism constitute either an opinion or an attitude to life and world. They are acquired a priori by a person together with upbringing and education, most often unconsciously. If we assume it is the case, anthropocentric attitude might be modified or replaced by another point of view.
In the literature one can find another related term, namely ‘homocentrism’. Homocentrism (from Latin homo – man, and Greek kéntron – centre), is an extreme version of anthropocentrism, since it also claims that only man has intrinsic value, only man valuates the world and only man acquires and gathers knowledge about the explored world.
When referring to subjective anthropocentrism, we find that it is a different category of anthropocentrism. It has no world-view character but rather a consciousness one. In other words, it constitutes the deepest aspect of human conscious – of conscious being a human, perceiving, understanding and experiencing the world as a specimen of homo sapiens. These features indicate at inborness, naturalness and, what is especially crucial, inalienability of subjective anthropocentrism. Man cannot distance himself from this kind of anthropocentrism.
Furthermore, the author investigates here the possibility of misunderstandings caused by imprecise definitions of the key-notions in environmental ethics. These misinterpretations can lead to severe problems in communication between individuals who deal with environmental protection, but have different worldviews. The example of such a notion is ‘anthropocentrism’ and terms created by discussed authors, namely ‘homocentrism’, ‘anthropolatrism’ and ‘anthropopriorism’ that are to denote various aspects of the anthropocentric phenomenon. Another instances are the words ‘egoism’, ‘egocentrism’ and ‘chauvinism’ that are easily mistaken for anthropocentrism by ecological activists. It seems that distinguishing between what is inborn and what is the result of upbringing and education can help in resolving many ecological dilemmas both practical and theoretical ones.
The section 1.2. presents the ecological context of the debate. The background of the discussion is drawn, namely the recognition of the ecological crisis. What is essential for this recognition is that the ecological problem was primarily the difficulty of nature itself and appeared eventually as not only nature’s problem together with humans experience of the ecological crisis. This led to the situation that the nature’s problem became the problem of human in nature and resulted in the emergence of biocentric environmental ethics. Biocentrism (from Greek bíos – life, and kéntron – centre), is an outlook on the world according to which everything that lives has equal inherent or intrinsic value because of being a teleological centre of life. For that reason humans are not inherently superior to other living beings.
Above mentioned section examines also ontological aspects of the discussion, where the difference lies in dissimilar perception of what is nature, who is man in nature and what is his role or destination. Anthropocentrism and biocentrism draw divergent conclusions from their visions as well. The Christian vision, proposed by Ślipko, treats Universe and man as a God’s creation, subordinated to His plans of salvation. The author focuses on the spiritual sphere of man and emphasises the importance of moral development. On the contrary, the naturalistic vision, propagated by Piątek, recognizes world and man in it as a result of laws of nature that act aimlessly, blindly and by chance. According to the thinker, the world of moral values is also the effect of the process of evolution.
The second chapter ‘Searching the Consensus’ presents a discussion with the anthropocentric and biocentric attitude. It points out the weaknesses or gaps in both approaches and shows their valuable ideas. Here is also investigated if nature should be protected, and if so, why. An effort is made there to answer the question if there is any possible justification of environmental protection that would convince most people to protect nature actively in their everyday life. In fact, from ‘the nature’s point of view’ such efforts are unusual and rather pointless.
In the third chapter ‘Towards More Adequate Environmental Ethics‘ is shown that Ślipko and Piątek meet in the crucial point. Nature’s and man’s goodness is highly important for them both. As a realisation of this goal they identify appropriate shaping of human moral sphere. These aims show that the purpose of Ślipko’s and Piątek’s environmental ethics is to some extent the same, namely building a better world for everyone. What is different, are the ways that lead to this end. Here is also discussed the adequate model of human being with strong emphasis on personalistic anthropology, which perceives humans as having free will and being responsible for their own actions.
Mentioned reflection leads to the last part of presented book: the conclusion that anthropocentrism is inevitable and, moreover, to some extent necessary in man-nature relation. For instance: the new notion of ‘potential anthropocentrism’ is developed. Potential anthropocentrism is a term created by the author of the thesis for naming the process of overcoming one’s individual egoism and developing one’s potential of humanity. For that purpose, anthropocentrism stands as a postulate in the thesis. This conclusion is a result of a paradox that appears after examination of both anthropocentric and biocentric ethics. Namely, it occurs that man has some features unusual in other living beings. For example, potential selfless acting and sacrificing oneself for others, not only for one’s relations. If there is no rational justification for the biocentric attitude, what remains is to appeal to the emotions or feelings and morality of each person. To achieve the right reaction to this appeal it is necessary to arise in people their potential ability to be altruistic, good, to love people and the world. In other words, it requires developing the desired type of anthropocentrism, namely intentional anthropocentrism.
To sum up, there is no one type of anthropocentrism but one can distinguish several kinds of it. Moreover, some types (worldview ones) are to be overcome, whilst the most fundamental subjective anthropocentrism is inborn and necessary. Additionally, anthropocentrism is desired in a specific form for resolving environmental problems. Paradoxically, one kind of anthropocentrism (in the sense of egocentrism) led to ecological crisis and the other one (in the sense of humanity) is strongly needed to overcome it. In other words, it is necessary to become less egocentric and develop a mature form of humanity in us.

Summary
People became to be aware of the destructive influence of the environment degradation on themselves not before the early 60s of the twentieth century (D. Brower, R. Carson, G. Hardin). Among authors whose reflections directly preceded the birth of environmental ethics as a single philosophical discipline one should list: H.D. Thoreau, J. Muir, A. Leopold and A. Schweitzer. Environmental ethics sensu stricto appeared in the 70s of the last century in the USA. One should emphasize here the opinions of the following authors: J. Cobb, W. Blackstone, J. Feinberg, Ch. Stone, A. Næss, R. Sylvan, J. Passmore, P. Singer, H. Rolston III, J. Rodman, G. Sessions, K.E. Goodpaster. Simultaneously V. R. Potter II worked out the global bioethics. In 1979 E. Hargrove founded the first academic journal on the field, entitled Environmental Ethics.
Until now there have crystallized three key currents of environmental ethics: anthropocentric, biocentric and holistic (ecocentric). The differences between these branches are conditioned by the adopted model of nature and accepted anthropology. Environmental ethics should become more practical in resolving real ecological problems we face.

Streszczenie
Z destrukcyjnego wpływu niszczenia środowiska na człowieka zaczęto sobie zdawać sprawę dopiero na początku lat 60. XX wieku (D. Brower, R. Carson, G. Hardin). Wśród myślicieli, których refleksje bezpośrednio poprzedziły powstanie etyki środowiskowej jako samodzielnej dyscypliny filozoficznej, wymienić należy: H.D. Thoreau, J. Muira, A. Leopolda i A. Schweitzera. Etyka środowiskowa sensu stricto narodziła się w latach 70. XX wieku w USA. Należy tu wymienić wystąpienia następujących autorów: J. Cobb Dotychczas wykrystalizowały się trzy główne nurty etyki środowiskowej: antropocentryczny, biocentryczny i ekocentryczny. Różnice między nimi są uwarunkowane koncepcją przyrody oraz antropologią.

The debate over anthropocentrism is crucial in the research for causes of environmental crisis. Most researchers perceive anthropocentrism negatively, as it leads to justification of human behaviour that endangers the environment. This situation resulted in the emergence of strong claims for a different and more adequate attitude towards nature. An environmental ethics appeared as a reply to these requirements. Tadeusz Ślipko (Christian environmental ethics) and Zdzisława Piątek (biocentric environmental ethics) are the main Polish thinkers who provide some ideas to deal with ecological problems. Nonetheless, the types of environmental ethics which the two theorists are in favour of are contradictory. They both have some points in common and provide valuable solutions. The purpose of this paper is to discuss these points and to investigate if these two attitudes could be combined into one environmental ethic in order to find better solutions for morality, and by means of this solve environmental problems.