Isn't it obvious that its much easier to promote a noble lie than a noble truth? If you promote the truth people will simply not investigate and use the logic you gave here to break crimes on a whim. So while it is more logically consistent, isn't it more socially profitable to go with King?
Or in other words:
Let's assume that every action you do legitimizes the same action to a varying level of abstraction to circles around you. So a number of people will imitate your principle, but not necessarily apply it to the same case. Let's also assume that most people that cannot do the same obvious philosophical analysis here by themselves cannot painstakingly investigate anything. If these two are true, wouldn't it make sense to promote King?
"First, it neglects a simple alternative to promoting the Noble Lie that evading or defying unjust laws is wrong. Namely: Promoting the Noble Truth that people should painstakingly investigate the justice of a law before breaking it."
Isn't it obvious that its much easier to promote a noble lie than a noble truth? If you promote the truth people will simply not investigate and use the logic you gave here to break crimes on a whim. So while it is more logically consistent, isn't it more socially profitable to go with King?
Or in other words:
Let's assume that every action you do legitimizes the same action to a varying level of abstraction to circles around you. So a number of people will imitate your principle, but not necessarily apply it to the same case. Let's also assume that most people that cannot do the same obvious philosophical analysis here by themselves cannot painstakingly investigate anything. If these two are true, wouldn't it make sense to promote King?
"First, it neglects a simple alternative to promoting the Noble Lie that evading or defying unjust laws is wrong. Namely: Promoting the Noble Truth that people should painstakingly investigate the justice of a law before breaking it."