Protecting The Interests Of Minorities (P. 232)

Journal Entry #7: Protecting the Interests of Minorities (p. 232) The world is full of controversy and tough choices. We love to fight for our freedoms, to say what we want and stand up for what is right. But there are a lot of times where there’s no clear right and wrong, and there are good, logical, reasonable people on each side of the argument that have just as much a right to defend their beliefs as you do. We tend to forget that, especially in such a bipartisan society full of politically and morally “gray area” issues. I have always been a moderate, “see both sides” kind of person, but when I look at this example about the book The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, I see two very fair sides of an argument. They both have valid points …show more content…
It might be easy to paint them as the bad guy depending on your perspective, but in reality they are concerned customers just like everyone else. They have legitimate reasons why they dislike the book, and as mentioned before they have just as much right to believe what they want and defend their beliefs, whether I agree with them or not. And in this scenario it’s a “significant number of signatures” on the petition (Borchers 232). They could be valued customers, and they seem to have formed a consensus, so is it wrong to oblige my customer’s request? Even if they little guy loses out? It certainly doesn’t seem fair no matter what action is taken; somebody always loses, somebody always gets offended, and when it comes down to it it’s the bookstore that suffers the …show more content…
The majority’s? The minority’s? The bookstore’s? Is there a correct answer? That’s the real question, and there isn’t a great answer for it. Our culture is overrun with precarious, complicated controversies just like this one, and we’re often faced with the task of choosing a side. The book The Protocols of the Elders of Zion presents an interesting problem that has no real right answer. Both arguments are fair, and both sides deserve to be heard. Personally, I think I know what I’d say if I was put into the situations described in the text, but it’s hard to know. There are many angles to consider; it’s a complex and controversial conundrum. We are all people, with our own opinions and perspectives, and we have a right to be heard, whether we are right, wrong, or indifferent. To me, that’s the real message of this ethical exercise. Banning or buying books aside, we should all be able to stand up for our