Something that's always confused me about the world and people as a whole. Why are so many people hell bent on implementing some "moral standard" that everyone needs to follow? Honestly?
There's this bizarre projection of the individual and his/her motivations onto every living being that fails to make any logical sense.
Is there any psychological premise for why we feel the need to dictate the behavior of others such that they perfectly mirror how we behave (or in many cases, wish to)?
There appears to be a tipping point where someone agrees with a certain set of values and as opposed to stopping at enforcing those values on themselves (reasonable), they go absolutely nuts trying to push it onto everyone else.
MLK was a religious ministry, so his job was to spread some kind of moral standard on other people anyways. So 1) his moral standard where known 2) it was quite fair for his opponents to use those moral standards against him.
(I'm not defending the letter or the FBI, I just think a minute detail of the story is consistent)
It's fair enough to characterize King's work as part religious ministry, and I think it's also fair to consider what it means that King's walk didn't live up to all of the standards one would assume would come with his apparent Christianity.
I'm not sure it is in fact fair "to use those moral standards against him", though, unless you're working with a conception of moral standards as a game in which the point is to cast your team into The Good Guys and the other team as The Bad Guys. And sure, some people play that exact game (the FBI is doing it here), but you can also approach moral standards as ideals which would make the world better if we could adhere to them. The latter conception still means that people who fail to keep standards can suffer natural consequences (as well as artificial ones of standing) if they don't adhere, but it's not much of an attack on the moral authority of the standard.
There's also a question of a sort of standards severability. King is known for agitating for racial equality and social justice, not for being a crusader for the virtues of chastity and fidelity. If he'd been known to privately abuse and privilege based on apparent race, or inclined to acquire wealth at the expense of others, that'd seem be a bigger deal.
Finally, a little bit of C.S. Lewis:
"The sins of the flesh are bad, but they are the least bad of all sins. All the worst pleasures are purely spiritual: the pleasure of putting other people in the wrong, of bossing and patronising and spoiling sport, and back-biting, the pleasures of power, of hatred. For there are two things inside me, competing with the human self which I must try to become. They are the Animal self, and the Diabolical self. The Diabolical self is the worse of the two. That is why a cold, self-righteous prig who goes regularly to church may be far nearer to hell than a prostitute. But, of course, it is better to be neither."
Again, none of this is to discount the value it might have to consider an MLK with weaknesses and some questionable behavior. Or, for that matter, the value of fidelity.
Personally I think it's more motivated, at least in the beginning, by said person wanting them to be "better". Said person feels they should act this way, as it's "better" and tries to force it on them.
Similar to how you'd feel towards people getting payday loans. Don't do it. Because X, and X is a valid reason to me to not do it. So you shouldn't do it.
At least personally, not giving advice that's isn't asked for is really hard at times because I think I usually have good advice. But that's exactly how "those" people feel.
By and large humans are not logical, our actions are not logical/rational at least on individual basis. They are rational from a evolutionary species domination POV. We are herd animals. Enforcing "moral standards" is outcome of Herd dynamics. e.g. way to maintain control / "leader of the herd" status and to distinguish other herdmembers.
Less cynically, moral cohesion is important for social cohesion, which is critical for survival. So from that perspective it makes perfect sense. It's just carried too far most of the time.
This is somewhat simplistic but consider life as a kind of prisoner's dilemma. Cooperation has many benefits and the people cooperating have a strong incentive to make others cooperate as well. It's not an exact match but try substituting "cooperation" where you would use "moral standard" and it will usually make good sense.
Is this an inditement of Dr. King, the FBI, Or the EFF?
Are you inditing all three of them?
I'm pretty sure all three parties have put their words to action, and are fully willing to follow their moral beliefs in addition to foisting those beliefs on others.
It's probably not the case here, but the reason I always supposed is that people secretly resent the moral rules they strive to follow, and think, "hey, if I've got to do this, so do you!"
There's this bizarre projection of the individual and his/her motivations onto every living being that fails to make any logical sense.
Is there any psychological premise for why we feel the need to dictate the behavior of others such that they perfectly mirror how we behave (or in many cases, wish to)?
There appears to be a tipping point where someone agrees with a certain set of values and as opposed to stopping at enforcing those values on themselves (reasonable), they go absolutely nuts trying to push it onto everyone else.
A sort of: how dare you.