Considering responsibility as a key anthropological category, Roman Ingarden stresses that it could only be inquired through the lens of a subject that is perceived personally, and not as a ‘pure I’. On the one hand, responsibility determines the nature of personal existence, and on the other hand, personal existence constitutes a space for interrogating about any meanings of the concept of responsibility. What remains problematic, however, is an alternative outlined by Ingarden, which implies that perception of a personal subject must be conducted within either of two perspectives – one that refers to a substantial model of personal subject, or the other that relates to acts of actualising the subject, which unfold in the stream of consciousness. It seems possible to go beyond this contradiction and reconcile the two perspectives – which the modern philosophy of dialogue proposes to do. Ingarden emphasises that the analysis of the concept of responsibility should not be limited to the realm of morality. However, all four scenarios that the philosopher uses as research fields to scrutinise the concept point, or at least imply the necessity of including aesthetic issues. Furthermore, the four fields of analysis – when somebody 1) bears responsibility, 2) takes responsibility, 3) is held responsible, and 4) acts responsibly – should not be perceived as isolated from one another. The link between them is man, who appears as a person in certain situations, while in others, his personal status is unrevealed, although it still remains within a firm horizon of situations and meanings examined herein. Moreover, regardless of the polarisation of the research fields highlighted by Ingarden, moral context constitutes a permanent space of reference for a human person, who not only asks for the sense (meanings) of responsibility, but also determines his/her personal existence through meanings and with their help.

The aim of this analysis is to determine whether Marx’s diagnosis of alienated work applies to work that is performed in our time, and whether the concept itself is useful for philosophical anthropology. Marx assumes that there is a link between alienation of work and alienation of the worker. The author asks if these premises lead to further questions, such as: Is the phenomenon of alienation of work characterized unambiguously and precisely? Can it be useful for analyzing social phenomena occurring outside the proletariat? Is it relevant to apply this phenomenon to the philosophical discourse on man conducted independently of the historical perspective assumed by Marx? Will abolition of private ownership of means of production eliminate the phenomenon of alienated work? Which is more nearly true: Marx’s idea that private property is the result of alienated work, or the opposite, that private property is its cause?

Etyka jest dla Elzenberga przede wszystkim refleksją na temat wartości i celów moralnych oraz dróg, k t óre prowadzą do ich afirmacji. Przeprowadzane przez Elzenberga analizy pojęć moralnych, a także refleksja nad funkcjonowaniem kluczowych pojęć (dobro i zło moralne) są ważnym przyczynkiem do filozoficznej dyskusji o człowieku jako podmiocie moralności. Badania podmiotowości moralnej Elzenberg przeprowadza na przykładzie homo ethicus. Figura ta jest nie tyle ucieleśnieniem człowieka „potencjalnie etycznego”, ile człowieka, który rzeczywiście kieruje się wolą etyczną. Taki człowiek świadomie zmierza do realizacji stawianych sobie zadań moralnych. Elzenberg wyróżnia w obrębie powyższej postawy dwa jej podtypy. Reprezentantami jednego z nich są ci, dla których najważniejszym celem jest wyzbycie się zła moralnego. Z kolei drugi podtyp reprezentują ci, których priorytetem jest optymalizacja dobra moralnego. Pierwszą postawę autor określa mianem soterycznej, drugą mianem meliorystycznej. Problemem, który Elzenberg zarysował, którego jednak nie zdołał w pełni rozwiązać, jest pytanie, czy analizowane postawy dopełniają się i poddają syntezie, czy raczej pozostają w konflikcie.