The debate between Nancy Scheper-Hughes and Roy D'Andrade in the 1995 issue of "Current Anthropology" about the role and responsibility of anthropologists in the study and representation of cultures and societies was one of the key debates to understanding the ethical dimensions within the field of anthropology. Nancy Scheper-Hughes argued for a morally engaged, activist anthropology where anthropologists have a responsibility to address and challenge issues of social injustice and human suffering that they witness during their fieldwork. She critiques traditional anthropology for its detached, “ivory tower” like approach. She emphasized that anthropologists should not only document and analyze but also actively participate in advocating for the communities they study. On the other hand, Roy D'Andrade defends the stance of anthropology as a science whose primary aim is to describe and explain diverse social and cultural phenomena through an objective approach. He argued that the main role of anthropologist is not being an activists but a researcher as an activism could compromise the scientific objectivity and integrity of anthropology. Since then, the influence of Scheper-Hughs' approach to anthropology's tasks has grown considerably, as reflected not only in the number of relevant publications, but also in the public statements of leading organisations representing the anthropological community (AAA or EASA). The recent reaction of the anthropological community to the position of the EASA in relation to the events in Gaza prompts us to look at the foundations of the discipline, to consider what realistically binds the anthropological community together today, and what are and could be the consequences for the discipline of imposing a moral model on itself.