mushinnoshin

You might remember that a few weeks ago we discovered that Phil Valentine needs gay marriage to be illegal, because government permission is the only thing keeping him from giving in to his cravings for a lifetime of hot bovid lovin’. Well Phil, if you get a chance, tonight’s your last chance to see the TN Rep perform Edward Albee’s The Goat or, Who is Sylvia?, which might help you understand why it’s a bad idea, whether or not the government approves.

Personally I thought the play was very funny, though I have trouble reading too many questions of philosophical import into it, aside from the simple value of forcing the audience to ask questions they’d probably just rather not ask. Wikipedia on the other hand mentions that the point may have something to do with finding the “limits of an ostensibly liberal society”, but I have some problems with that perspective.

First, because no matter who or what the man’s adulterous companion was, the fact is he betrayed his pledge to his family. While one might argue for an acceptance of open relationships as being a liberal value, betrayal — violating a trust that has no agreed allowance for polyamory — most certainly is not. One can perfectly well condemn the man without even addressing his particular fetish and still be genuinely “liberal”.

Second, the question is greatly clouded by the character’s seemingly sincere belief that he and the goat were “in love”. The outright absurdity of this premise, combined with the scene one references to the man’s declining mental state, paint a picture of a man in need of psychological (and possibly medical) help, and the manner in which his illness is manifested is irrelevant. If you want to discuss whether liberalism must allow for bestiality, you have to start with a character of sound mind, who clearly understands what he’s doing.

I suppose one could ask whether a liberal should have compassion, rather than condemnation, for the man and his illness. And I would say certainly. But even at that — well, the family’s reaction is still quite understandable given the devastating bomb dropped upon them — we must have compassion for them as well. This leaves Ross, whose reaction and attitude I agree can be condemned under this interpretation — but the simple explanation that he is a singular asshole seems more likely than the extrapolated presumption that most liberals would behave the same.

As to the unaddressed question itself — absent betrayal, and given a person of sound mind — must liberalism regard bestiality as acceptable? I would have to suppose the answer becomes dependent on the next question of animal rights, yielding three possible answers. One who recognizes no rights in animals has little left to condemn. One who recognizes animal rights has to then ask whether they believe the animal, umm, likes it. Personally, since I — at the risk of using what could almost be construed as a triple-entendre — have no dog in the hunt — am quite content to leave the question unanswered. But Phil, if you want to understand whether your goat fetish is immoral, these are the questions you’re going to have to address.