This paper critically examines the growing ideology of "cancellation" in religion and ethics, contrasting it with a more nuanced ideology of conservation that condemns past wrongs while retaining a mature memory of them for future generations. As debates over cultural memory, moral accountability, and historical reckoning intensify, particularly in religious and ethical contexts, the concept of cancellation—a wholesale rejection and erasure of morally problematic legacies—has emerged as a dominant approach. This paper questions the ethical implications of this trend, arguing that while cancellation may seem just in swiftly disassociating from historical evils, it often fails to consider the long-term consequences of severing connections to the past. Drawing on both classical and contemporary ethical theories, the paper proposes that conservation offers a more sustainable and morally responsible alternative. Conservation, in this context, does not mean preserving injustices or celebrating harmful histories; rather, it entails acknowledging past wrongs and conserving their memory as cautionary tales. The discussion engages with Cicero's notion of conservatio—a principle that calls for the preservation of values, decorum, and human nature in ways that maintain social and moral continuity amidst transformation. The analysis touches on various case studies where both cancellation and conservation ideologies have clashed, particularly in religious communities grappling with their own problematic histories. The discussion extends to the broader ethical questions of how society should handle statues, texts, and symbols associated with oppression: should they be removed entirely, or preserved as reminders of what must never be repeated? The paper also probes the theological implications of erasure versus remembrance, asking whether religious traditions are better served by an ethics of amnesia or one of memory and redemption.