This case is a beautiful example of that. Instead of using an authority complex, like the Louisville & N R v. Louisville case, the court here uses a prejudice case. Explaining that your opinion, “dressed in such pieties, your prejudice now looks rather grand. Grand enough, perhaps, that no one will notice that it remains wholly unsupported by evidence.” As Mr. Clayton progresses through his case, you start to make less and less sense of it all. His failure almost writes itself. In the case review, Clayton’s lawyer states, “as the case is dissected, we begin to wonder what the real idea is.” This is not because Clayton has no case, but is contradicting because he never bothered to truly build one and just dressed up his opinions …show more content…
As time progressed, a change in ethics occurred, from just feeling bigger than others with authority, to not bothering to fully explain the argument, to blatant inconsistency. All three of these things are lies, and all three are frowned upon in most societies, but they are still seen everywhere. Why is that? Why is the ethical code not been changed to remove liars and bad people? As stated before, prejudice. Human kind having the ability to judge gives human society a reason to be awful. As time progresses, human kind with outgrow some prejudices and develop new ones. As history has shown, humans change and they will fix the injustices as they