This paradigm focuses on the rights of every individual instead of singling out a certain group or individual. In the 2004 Tennessee v Lane case where the court decided on whether two paraplegic individuals could sue Tennessee for not making their courthouse accessible to disabled people, “the court ruled in favor of the minority group without framing its ruling in group-based equality rhetoric” (Yoshino 555). By doing this they made the argument that everyone has the right to be able to access the court instead of only arguing that disabled people have the right to access the courts. They made the same argument in the Lawrence v. Texas case. This case involved the Supreme Court knocking down Texas statue that criminalized same-sex sodomy (Yoshino 555). When the court knocked down the statue they made the argument that the statue violated the rights of everyone and not just gay people. They made the shift from an equality-based claim to a liberty-based claim. Kenji Yoshino states that “Liberty claims emphasize what all Americans have in common” (Yoshino 556). This why it is better suited for arguments pertaining to the rights of …show more content…
As the Dalai Lama said, “The rapid increase in human knowledge and the technological possibilities emerging in the new genetic science are such that it is now almost impossible for ethical thinking to keep pace with these changes” (Dalai Lama 133). Society needs to be able to be reasonable about the use of a new technology if it the ethics surrounding it is not right. There needs to always be an emphasis placed on the problems that theses technology bring in order to prevent a person’s right from being taken away from them due to that technology. This requires that here is always reason-forcing conversation when the use of a new technology is being