MITCHELL MCCAUGHAN
ANTHROPOLOGY 100
WILLIAMS
GUNS GERMS AND STEEL PART TWO
Even though the documentary, “Guns, Germs and Steel,” delivers a sense of gratitude for the state or our civilization and culture, it poses several moral dilemmas in which are too frequently forgotten. Namely the idea that we stole and murdered for what we have. That our history is rarely accurate to this point and that we are effectively indoctrinated into a system that, to the extent in which they are understood, allows for immediate acceptance and general approval of these facts. One is most certainly left asking whether it has been worth it. If one were to consider this question seriously, it may be as hard a question that has ever been presented. If we start with the fundamental principles of morality and explore an objective analysis of our actions I think we find that the answer is most certainly that it has not been worth it. If we accept an elementary moral maxim that we are accountable for the anticipated consequences of our own actions, then we must have a conversation about what we do that is within our control. We can discuss the behaviors and effects of behaviors exhibited by others, but there is no moral significance to that discussion. It may provide an interesting bounding of debate but will relatively account for nothing. In we accept this and subsequently if we deny the general concept of hypocrisy, that is that we can agree that the standards in which we accept for ourselves we will seek for others, we must then ensure through our actions that nothing contradicts this. We have failed in this regard. To merely suggest that our existence and our continued existence along with our perceived advancement is an argument for our actions is wrong. Now remember we are determining it to be wrong based upon the principles we have already established and our denial of being hypocritical. If we were to cast aside these concepts then we would simply continue as we have for hundreds of years. From the moment we set foot in this country we began to establish and adhere to guidelines which were predominantly beneficial to the advancement and sustainment of our own people, frequently balanced by the suffering of others. This practice is not only continued through history, but arguably it is accelerated. Again we must resist the temptation to compare ourselves to others as in accepting our moral maxim, that is out of our control and we must concern our efforts and discussion on that which we can control. We have shown a strict adherence to an internal doctrine and have routinely been selective in our adherence to world doctrine. That is, our involvements and interventions parallel our own agenda and fit quite seamlessly with selfish motivations. To accept this would be to deny our moral maxim, to say that we are not responsible for our actions, and that we have standards in which we selectively apply for the human race. We are more important therefore more entitled therefore right and therefore our life is of more significance. If we assume that there is a connection between our actions and our value system, than I believe we can conclude that contrary to our perceived virtuous intentions, we actually prescribe to the much more dangerous and harmful ones. This can change, but it truly begins one person at a time. I would argue that we would be better off living by our true intrinsic values even if doing so would have us cast back into an undeveloped civilization.