Voicing her warped justifications of the ill ways in running their Big Pharma, that fuelled what parallels the opioid crisis is Madeline Usher’s chillingly heartless monologue to his brother Roderick…
‘F_cking people out there, Roderick. You don’t want Ligadone [which is their company’s ‘revolutionary’ painkiller], don’t buy it. You don’t want to get addicted, don’t abuse it. They’re mad because we made it available and desirable. Hey, news flash, it’s our only f_cking job.’
Are those who create, market and sell the desirabe yet ultimately harmful absolved of guilt when buyers get sicker or even die from overconsumption? The Buddhist answer is a clear ‘yes.’ According to the precepts themselves, to provide supportive conditions (助缘) for the cause (因) of others breaking the precepts (破戒) is also wrong. In this instance, the drug becomes life-threatening and addictive in effect, thus breaking the spirit of the First and Fifth Precept, against killing and intoxication respectively, even if legal with loopholes in the law.
‘These people… They want an entire meal for $5 in five minutes, and then they complain when it’s made of shit and plastic. McDonald’s would serve nothing but kale salad all day and all night long if that’s what people f_cking ate. It’s available, no one buys it…’
There is some truth in this. Many consumers want cheap and good food, which is not always easily available. Cheaper yet unhealthy fast food is thus chosen instead, leading to unaffordable medical bills in time. However, just because there is much demand for junk food does not mean it is alright to keep profiting through them (or similar products). Again, to provide ill supportive conditions is definitely wrong.
‘There for the labour and to spend what little they make consuming. And what do we teach them to want? Houses they can’t afford. Cars that poison the air. Single-serve plastics, clothes made by starving children in third world countries, and they want it so bad that they’re begging for it, they’re screaming for it, they’re insisting upon it.’
Individual consumers have the personal responsibility to choose what they should consume ethically, even in the face of heavy, false and half-true marketing. Even if the eco-friendly and humanely ethical cost more, is that not the true cost of what should be consumed? Knowing the steep price to pay later for otherwise ill consumption, consumers have to wake up now, to collectively demand for kinder and wiser products and services, to turn the tables around.
‘And we’re the problem? These f_cking monsters, these f_cking consumers, these f_cking mouths. They point at you and me like we’re the problem. They f_cking invented us. They begged for us, they’re begging for us still. So I say, we stand tall and proud, brother.’
While consumers do sustain ill products with their continual demand for them, they cannot be said to have invented them. Greedy producers like the Usher siblings are the ones who created them, using them as profitable bait for also greedy but gullible consumers. Just because there are those easily victimised does not mean they should be victimised. The victimiers are still responsible for their victimisation.
Related Articles:
How To Increase And Decrease Gun Violence
https://thedailyenlightenment.com/2015/10/how-to-increase-decrease-gun-violence
Why Avoidance Of Alcohol Is So Important
https://thedailyenlightenment.com/2016/08/why-avoidance-of-alcohol-is-so-important
Related Review:
After A Deal With The ‘Devil’ Begins ‘The Fall Of The House Of Usher’
Link Pending…
