Introduction
David Little believes that human rights are directly related to freedom of conscience and religion. He is also convinced that the existence of human rights is what has contributed to autocratic regimes, the arbitrary use of force, and wars. The rejection of this concept is what leads to the emergence of such personalities as, for example, Hitler. David Little attributes the increasing importance of Article 48 of the Weimar Constitution to the rising police brutality and Hitler’s undivided authority (2016). According to David Little, examples of arbitrary force are war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity (2016). The deliberate deprivation of economic, social, and cultural rights is another example of this concept (Cundall, 2020). A feature of arbitrary force is the imposition of beliefs on people, which means that dissent is forbidden (Little, 2016). The author thinks the arbitrariness of such actions lies in the fact that it is impossible to justify the truth of any religion through coercion.
David Little vs. Martin Luther King on Human Rights
It is not difficult to explain why arbitrary force is bad. There is no excuse for the many murders and humiliations inflicted on people when people who do not care about human rights come to power. History is replete with totalitarian and autocratic regimes that have inevitably resulted in the repression and persecution of innocent individuals (Little, 2016). An example of a reasonable restriction of human rights would be the establishment of a ban on the choice of residence and stay during the imposition of martial law. Another example would be allowed unimpeded entry into a dwelling in a zone of an anti-terrorist operation. However, it is clear that in any case where it is necessary to impose any restrictions on human rights, all objective and subjective factors must be considered. This is because the mere conduct of an anti-terrorist operation or martial law cannot justify, for example, the infliction of violence on ordinary people.
The beginning of the second half of the twentieth century in the history of the United States is a serious milestone, full of various events. These include McCarthyism, the Cuban Missile Crisis, John and Robert Kennedy assassinations, and the Vietnam War. Among these undoubtedly striking events is the struggle of ordinary American citizens for their rights and, in general, the protest movement in the United States. In the postwar decades, the United States did much to strengthen the country’s economic and military strength and position in the world, maintain domestic stability, and raise the standard of living. Yet many citizens of this country had, and still have, problems that prompted social protest and the struggle for their rights.
There were not enough voices at the time to declare their opposition to the racist agenda. Too much cruelty was happening back then — family separation, murder, discrimination in all walks of life. Martin Luther King writes about the unbearable scale of injustice in his letter to Birmingham Prison. He appeals against racism and against the imposition of bans on demonstrations in the United States. The letter repeatedly mentions the word “rights,” suggesting that the issue of respect for human rights is the key theme of King’s letter. He writes that failure to follow the law in one place threatens justice everywhere (King, 1994). This judgment correlates with David Little, who believed that arbitrary force would cause undemocratic regimes to intensify, leading to a widespread increase in violence.
Martin Luther King’s letter contains the idea that injustice is something that hurts not only the black population of America but the entire nation. This idea is one of the most critical thoughts of the letter. When the magnitude of the problem becomes so enormous that it affects the interests of the whole country, action must be taken (Cundall, 2020). King is convinced that no group will voluntarily give up the privileges it has received (1994). As David Little thought, rulers will only increase their leverage once in power by suppressing people’s rights (2016). Therefore, according to King, it is necessary to organize a massive pressure on the authorities by human rights defenders (1994). Black people in America could no longer wait until they were given equal rights and had to arrange a fight to get them.
In addition, King mentions that there are not only just laws but also unjust laws. The second type can hardly even be called a law because it does not conform to the norms of morality (King, 1994). In David Little’s article, there is no such subdivision of statutes. Still, he did mention that provisions introduced into the law can, if not adequately controlled, quickly become a weapon in the hands of an undemocratic regime (Little, 2016). Although the authors use different terminology, the overall message of their work is the same.
Conclusion
It can be said that when it comes to human rights, different authors tend to agree. King and Little recognize the unacceptability of injustice and the arbitrary application of force. While King focuses on issues of racial injustice, Little is more concerned that the consequence of not respecting human rights can be war mass killings. For both authors, recognizing the value of human rights guarantees that arbitrariness will not be tolerated and that democracy exists in society.
References
Cundall, M. K. (2020). Philosophical introductions: Introductory readings in philosophy. Cognella Academic Publishing.
King, M. L. (1994). Letter from the Birmingham Jail. HarperCollins.
Little, D. (2016). Human rights, religious freedom, and peace. BYU Law Review, 6(4), 1215-1236. Web.