In the business of purchase, there’s an emphasis on value-adding. The producers play second fiddle in such respect. And as part of the universal right of the consumer, the right to choose, and the right to satisfaction of basic needs shouldn’t be compromised. In the grand scheme of things, the producer is more like an afterthought. So what now happens to a producer that has been found wanting by the law? For clarity, let’s just say the issue with the producer has entirely nothing to do with the standard of products being produced and sold. Is it then fair to cancel or blacklist such a product even when it meets consumer satisfaction and also doesn’t infringe on any of the rights of the consumer?
After careful consideration, it’s safe to say that the idea of this cancel culture is meant to orchestrate good conducts and not spread bias and hate indiscriminately. Consumers should not be deprived of their power to choose. Such assertion means it should be the personal decision of the consumer to boycott a product if a manufacturer’s action is so despicable that it no longer matters if the baby goes with the bath water. Every product is aimed at solving a problem— meeting a need or want. So when a long-awaited need is met; a need such as a patented cure for a terminal illness, can we still insist that we should discard everything— including a great contribution to humanity? Standing on that thought will allow our minds to be liberal and make distinctions between a producer and its product, art from an artist. If we can separate these issues, will it now be fair for someone to still profit from their products or arts after being convicted for a totally different offence that is as well a slap to humanity?
Due to the influence money has on almost anything, it’s paramount to understand this quagmire by making logical decisions rather than emotional ones. Logically, freezing of assets and other punitive measures should suffice as a deterrent to others. Any application of the law that is aimed towards the producer should be enforced to the letter with the careful exoneration of the product. In addition to that, some products are the brainchild of a couple of people, who in turn share the patented rights. It’s rather harsh on some members of the production team if their output is to be watered down by one or two persons who are in trouble with the law.
We can attest from carefully studying that some products are timeless and transcend the manufacturers. Such products that have come to make the human experience better should not be dragged into muddy waters with a dirty producer.
Every well-meaning human strives to add to the existing achievement in their respective fields. Such ambition is valid in all walks of life. Any such exploration that has added to humanity should be improved upon, instead of toeing the paths of retrogression. As humans, we are also consumers with rights who deserve nothing but the absolute best. Peradventure, when an ugly situation threatens that, we should focus on the central area of concern without getting emotionally reckless. Humans are vessels through which inspirations live; making it easy to objectively reject a messenger but still benefit from the message. Picking the right battles is always key; knowing that we are not at war with ourselves. The cancel culture should not be the first thing on our minds if a crime can be independently punished. While the law is serving its course, it should be a matter of preference in the choice of embracing the pursuits and achievements of the excellence in arts, scientific discoveries, breakthroughs in medicine, academics, astronautical engineering and any other form of brilliance that will aid humanity.