Nikola Visković (1938) is one of the Croatian pioneers in bioethics, particularly regarding the introduction of non-human living beings into bioethical considerations. His contribution to these considerations is not only contained in the so-called fields of animal or environmental ethics and law (his main vocation being legal theorist), but in a complex pluri-perspective insight into the relationship between culture (human being) and nature, mostly presented in the books Animal and Man and Tree and Man. Throughout these Visković (mostly implicitly) demonstrated that comprehensive insight into the moral issue of regard toward nature and other living beings cannot be done without an understanding of this complex relationship, i.e. without the contribution of different scientific and non-scientific perspectives. In that manner, Visković’s work follows a similar path as integrative bioethics. Hence, this paper has two main aims: to locate the incentives for re-thinking the culture-nature relationship in Visković’s work and to demonstrate how it can contribute to the construction of the still-young field of integrative bioethics.After Visković’s biography, in which his actions in the Zelena akcija Split (Green Action, Split) organization are specially considered, the paper reflects on the concepts of culture and nature. Culture is defined formally, as the specific mode of human existence or the specific mode in which they mediate the object (including themselves) they relate to, and not substantially as a number of certain traits. It is also shown that Visković’s idea of culture in most parts follows this determination, namely as a specificity of what man builds out of and above nature, or as the process of denaturalization. The concept of nature is further explained through the historical shifts of its understanding, where one of the main ideas is Visković’s notion of forgetfulness of nature. In order to overcome this phenomenon, Visković forms the concepts of cultural zoology and cultural botany (under the common name of cultural biology), which are presented in detail. Both of them are explained through spiritual and material aspects, as well as through the aspect of maltreatment. The spiritual aspects of both cultural zoology and cultural botany are explained through scientific and philosophical reflections of the nature of animals and plants respectively. Special regard is then given to the examination of anthropomorphism, zoomorphism,and fitomorphism, as well as to the places which animals and plants occupy in myths, religions, arts,and politics. In the cultural-zoological part, the paper also reflects on the thesis that animals can have language and culture, which are both discredited regarding conclusions made earlier. However, in the cultural-botanical part additional reflections on forgetfulness of nature are made, more precisely through the presentation of Visković’s detection of forgetfulness of wood as the matter. Other material aspects of cultural zoology are the usage of wood as fuel and weapons, usage of plants for healing and their cultivation. Material aspects of the human-animal relationship are presented through the phenomena of diet and domestication. Finally, maltreatment of non-human living beings is reflected through war, hunting, entertainment,scientific experiments, industrial farms and slaughterhouses, exterminations of species, forests,and individual animals and plants.Following the fact that Visković opened his concept of culture not only for destruction but also for the appreciation of nature, the paper examines Visković’s ethical position, tries to find the connections between his the mostly Marxist approach of the earlier and biocentric approach of the later phase, presents philosophical influences on his position by examining and criticizing ethical theories of Arthur Schopenhauer, Peter Singer, Tom Regan, Aldo Leopold, and Arne Næss, etc.Visković often discredits Marxism due to the lack of appreciation for nature. However, the paper tries to partly rehabilitate Marxist thought for bioethical purposes, primarily as a valuable tool for recognizing shortcomings of techno-scientific rationality and material conditions which make moral regard toward every living being more difficult. It can also be helpful for ethics which is focused on the concept of self-realization. Some other concepts, as moral rights and sustainable development, are also reflected and criticized in this chapter. One of its main goals is not only to criticize Visković’s position but to make it more coherent and to demonstrate which incentives for all-encompassing ethical theory (here based on the concept of self-realization and various traditions)can be found in his thoughts.Finally, the paper presents the history of the idea of bioethics and particularly integrative bioethics. It shows that Visković’s potential contribution to the latter can be especially found in the enrichment of the concept of bioethical sensibility, through Visković’s reflections on the familiarity of culture toward nature (with all of its desirable and undesirable consequences), anthropomorphism, and the relationship between sensibility and rationality, which both must be employed in order to heal human being’s relationship with nature. Visković’s contribution can also be observed by recognizing many similarities which his concept of bioethics shares not only with the integrative bioethics but also with the two fathers of bioethics: Van Rensselaer Potter and Fritz Jahr. This chapter also includes Visković’s reflections on medical ethics and erotica, both examined through a wider bioethical viewpoint, as well as the question: should Visković be held a postmodernist and integrative bioethics a postmodernist endeavor? The paper stresses that both would not be adequate, even though there are certain reasons for the former conclusion. The last part of the paper tries to summarize the issue of the culture-nature relationship by examining the normative dimension of both these concepts. One of the main conclusions is that culture and nature should be distinguished exactly in order to make a foundation for moral regard toward the latter.