Duplicity is not new. Throughout history, there have been individuals who been duplicitous, in that they have effectively lived a double-life. What is new, however, is just how easy it has become to live a double-life thanks the internet. In the past, doing so effectively meant living in two different locations, where through interaction with two entirely different sets of people one effectively forged two unrelated identities.
Nowadays, however, creating a different identity is effectively as simple as the click of a mouse. A person can go on Second Life, for example, and create an entirely new identity. Philip Markoff stands as an embodiment of this reality. He was a medical student who was living a double-life—as task facilitated, in this instance, by Craigslist.
There was a time when it was very difficult to satisfy morally bankrupt desires except by leading a double life in a different location. Nowadays, it is extremely easy to satisfy morally bankrupt desires simply joining a website such as Craigslist or Second Life. This raises an important question about the reasonableness of the victim’s behavior.
The issue is not about blaming the victim for being murdered; for nothing whatsoever justifies her being murdered by someone. But in view of the obvious truth that, alas, anyone on-line can be anyone, including a tremendously bad person, then it is very disconcerting that anyone would put herself or himself in a very precarious situation by agreeing to meet a perfect stranger in an entirely isolated setting. Now more than ever, commonsense loudly counsels against doing such thing.
As a guy, I would not agree to meet a man who is a complete stranger to me in an entirely isolated setting. It would not matter what the occasion: to exchange one item for another; to share some important piece of information about a third party; or what have you.
Of course, nothing is full-proof. And there is no way to live a meaningful life without take some risks. Still, there are reasonable precautions. And this holds now more than ever, precisely because one thing we surely know is that the internet lends itself to abuse by morally bankrupt people. The internet is extremely fertile soil for duplicity, as anyone who signs up for a site such as Craigslist or Second Life just has to know.
So although we should not blame the victim, what is true nonetheless is that her behavior bespoke enormous imprudence on her part.
Turning now to Megan McAllister, the question that readily arises is the following: What are the limits of love and loyalty?
To be sure, a person can be too eager to see a person as having done wrong; hence, the person comes across as looking for faults in the other. This, obviously, is unacceptable.
McAllister, though, seems to be erring in the other direction. The preponderance of evidence suggests that Markoff has a very unsavory moral character. I mean he was not caught “watching a porno flick”. People might find this behavior unsatisfactory. Yet, it must be acknowledged that occasionally watching a porno flick is what many an otherwise decent man does. If only the evidence suggested that Markoff were “guilty” of doing no more than that!
Unless Markoff is simply being framed—and there is no reason at all to think so—the preponderance of evidence makes it abundantly clear that he is not the kind of man that any woman should want to marry.
It is, of course, perfectly possible that Megan McAllister is in a state of shock; for the man with whom she had been living and whom she had been planning to marry in August of 2009 has turned out to be quite a horrible person; and this all has unfolded rather like an unexpected tidal wave.
What strikes me as most interesting is that McAllister conveys no sense of disappointment and anger over the fact that man whom she loves is even remotely associated such abominable behavior. Even if Markoff had not killed anyone and even if it is true that Markoff did not kill anyone, there are the other unsavory aspects of his life that remain—more than enough for a fiancée to be very upset and disappointed.
Megan McAllister claims that Philip Markoff would not hurt a fly. That truth, alas, is perfectly compatible with Markoff doing lots of things that call into question his moral character. A person who has a gambling habit may not harm a fly; yet, the person is open to serious criticism for having a gambling habit. Likewise, a man who frequents prostitutes may not harm a fly, either. After all, prostitution is often referred to as the victimless crime. Just so, a man who is given to seeking out prostitutes surely does not make for a good husband.
There is every reason to think that Markoff has masterfully betrayed McAllister. Notice that she has not at all indicated that Markoff claims to be innocent.
Together, these considerations would suggest that McAllister’s loyalty to Markoff is way over the top, as we say—far exceeding the loyalty that love demands of us. It is one thing to hope for the best. It is quite another to stare evil in the face and claim that “It is good”. Love is about the former and not the latter.
Indeed, love at its best is not indifferent to the behavior of a beloved. Quite the contrary, love at its best leaves us mightily susceptible to anger and hurt when we have been betrayed. In a word, love at its best has built in limits. And this truth tells us something rather revealing, namely that so often what passes for love is not that at all, but some form of narcissistic obsession.
