Introduction
In an era of technological acceleration, we face a fundamental question: is what is technically possible always right? The dominance of instrumental values over intrinsic ones leads to the gradual erosion of culture and humanity. By analyzing the thought of Stanisław Lem, Bogusław Wolniewicz, and Henryk Elzenberg, we discover that without building "axiological resilience," our community may dissolve into a collection of individuals controlled by algorithms and the engineering of desires. This article diagnoses the threats arising from the utilitarian narrowing of our horizons and points toward ways to defend against modern barbarism.
Technology imposes a morality of possibility
Stanisław Lem warned against the automatic equation of the achievable with the appropriate. In this logic, what is technically feasible almost immediately becomes an obligation. Such an attitude nihilizes culture because it replaces axiology with the belief that the sequence of scientific discoveries should dictate human destiny. When biotechnology and neuroengineering begin to shape our needs, we lose a fixed point of reference. Henryk Elzenberg countered this with intrinsic (perfect) values. According to him, a state of affairs is valuable when it is "as it should be," regardless of whether anyone currently desires it or if it is profitable.
Contemporary biopolitics and technology can lead to the nihilization of culture by "retuning" the human being. When functionality metrics become the sole measure of good, the line between capability and duty blurs, and culture ceases to be a sphere of values independent of current technical possibilities.
The primacy of intrinsic values over instrumental ones
Bogusław Wolniewicz defined barbarism as a state of mind that understands nothing but utility. In his view, culture is a rigorous order of intrinsic values, where truth must be treated as an ultimate goal rather than a PR instrument. This philosopher, like Lem, believed that evil is intentional. Lem rejected the thesis that evil is merely the absence of good; he saw it as an active, conscious intention. Wolniewicz complemented this with the concept of the epiphany of the devil—historical moments where "ill will and malicious joy" condense.
Without the language of intrinsic values, we become defenseless against such manifestations of evil. When truth is degraded to the role of a tool, science stops producing theories and begins creating only rhetorical gadgets. This is why it is so important to distinguish between instrumental values, which serve to satisfy shifting needs, and intrinsic ones, which constitute the objective order of reality.
Four pillars of axiological resilience
Defending culture requires activating four lines of resistance. The first is law—understood not as a technical set of rules, but as an institution binding rationality with values. The Radbruch formula reminds us that a law that is flagrantly unjust ceases to be law. The second line is education, which must protect against barbarism by initiating students into the world of truth, goodness, and beauty, rather than merely training market competencies. The third pillar consists of cultural institutions, which should offer "axiological resistance" to commercialization. The fourth and most important line is the individual and their personal moral courage.
In the age of algorithms, we must choose value-rationality (faithful to principles) over purely instrumental rationality (focused on effectiveness). An example of the danger is predictive algorithms in the judiciary, which reduce justice to statistics, ignoring the dignity and freedom of the individual. A community needs the sacred and non-negotiable values to avoid becoming merely a "herd" plugged into stimulus distribution systems.
Summary
In the face of technological omnipotence, can we still distinguish between what is possible and what is right? An analysis of the thought of Lem, Wolniewicz, and Elzenberg leads to the conclusion that intrinsic values are a condition for the survival of a community. Without them, we will be left only with the mechanics of needs that can be manipulated at will. We must reject the faith in scientific progress as the sole guide of destiny and return to understanding culture as a sphere of disinterested "ought." What is at stake in this game is the preservation of the foundations of civilization against the flood of barbarism in suits.
📄 Full analysis available in PDF