My small contribution regarding this quote from Vonnegut:
Vonnegut said it was "sweet and honourable" to die for what you believe in, and rejected the idea that terrorists were motivated by twisted religious beliefs.
"They are dying for their own self-respect," he said. "It's a terrible thing to deprive someone of their self-respect. It's like your culture is nothing, your race is nothing, you're nothing."
How exactly is killing innocent people supposed to enhance your "self-respect"? If it does, should we think twice about whether "self-respect" is such a wonderful thing? And if this judgment that self-respect demands the slaughtering of innocents stems from your affection for "your culture" -- and I stress that this is a big "if," which reflects an assumption that Vonnegut had made -- what does that say about the merits of your culture?
Mind you, I think collective guilt is a bad idea, for just such reasons. But your post is attacking a straw man.
(I'm not at all clear what Vonnegut means; I assume he is alluding to theories that terrorists are often motivated by sociopolitical despair. Makes little enough sense to me, tho I'm reminded of Yeats: "The years to come seemed waste of breath, / A waste of breath the years behind." I supposed that, as much as any "passionate intensity," might motivate some terrorists.)
It's not the act of blowing yourself up to kill your enemies that is evil, it's believing that people who have never met or harmed you are your enemies, that is evil.
Americans, with a few exceptions, seek to avoid killing innocents but acknowledge that some innocents will nevertheless be killed in a war. Those Americans who avoid civilian casualties, even if negligently causing some, are morally superior to sucide bombers who intentionally target innocents.
Not sure he's wrong about the motives of suicide bombers, either, though his brain has probably seen better days judging by the rest of the interview.
The idea that's more sensible regardless of who wrote it.
What, you don't like to eat? Oy!
As Abdul suggests, the argument from authority has its place, but this isn't one of those places.
You are correct. I completely forgot our moral superiority.
Isn't one of Vonnegut's virtues his ability to see that sort of "sweet and honorable" crap for what it really is? Has age dimmed his vision, or has his dislike for Bush (which I share) clouded his vision?
Shouldn't Vonnegut (and everyone else who believes they're on the side of humanity) be insisting, "enough of the killing and spare me your romanticism of slaughter"?
Your sarcasm is even less impressive than your moral judgment.
"Vonnegut's latest comments are likely to make many people wonder if old age has finally caught up with a grand old man of American letters."
Does Vonnegut really want to go to the dark places where that line of reasoning leads?
My apologies. I meant, of course, your moral superiority. My moral judgement (as you would know, having made a thorough study) is not at all superior.
Vonnegut believes that modern life and society has stripped people of belonging to a community (look at us all interacting online) and of purposes for their lives.
To have a purpose is necessary for happiness in Vonneguts views. He views American life as purposeless-entertainment, sex, and material goods are in the end empty. the terrorists themselves, not their sympathizers, share this too. they are extremely devoted, and they could not do it if they didnt get satisfaction from it, the devotion to the end, not just the end.
Rest assured that Vonnegut does not support the loss of "innocent" life, but he was referring to the terrorists. If you want to understand them, you are going to have to get past "evil."
If you cannot get past "evil" that is ok too, but do not participate in the security services please. We do not need any more simplistic analysis there, we need cold-hearted rational people to understand what is going on. If you can't comprehend anyone hating America, then stay in your SUV with the american flag on it.
In our society, Vonnegut would have us value family, culture, learning, etc. and that we need more human interaction. Vonnegut does not support the terrorists or really repect their belief, he is an avowed atheist. But he realizes that craving for meaning, for purpose, that is unmet by modern life in modern societies.
Think about all the social ills in America (drugs, crime, moral laxity, violence, greed, etc.). Vonnegut thinks those are a result of our lack of meaning as a society that is fragmented and isolated in our living rooms and cubicles. Imagine how much worse it is somewhere like Saudi Arabia (where the 9/11 attackers came from) where they have no outlets for the purposeless except foreign travel and religion.
The guys that attacked the WTC had a strong sense of purpose, even if wrong, if you don't believe that you are not capable of rational thought on the topic. Vonnegut thinks that believing in something enough to die for is a very important human fundamental emotion. If you are willing to die for freedom, then you agree, but freedom to do what? go to the mall, buy things, what?
I dont think we need a centralized society to give us all purpose, but people are going to have to find things in the culture they want to pursue. "The economy" isnt enough. I am sorry that Prof. Volokh would throw a couple sentences of Kurt Vonnegut into a debate like this without any reference to Vonnegut's huge body of work, which often references killing, war, human beings, etc.
I don't pretend to have given a great summary of it, but Vonnegut has a huge volume of writing on these things, and to toss him into a simplistic debate like this I think debases an American writing hero. He clearly intended this to embarrass Vonnegut w/ "sweet and honourable." Nice.
I guess you're arguing that suicide bombing is the Islamic equivalent of these virtues in our culture? After all, it's all about "that craving for meaning, for purpose, that is unmet by modern life in modern societies." One person meets that craving having a moving (if adolescent) response to Slaughterhouse Five another by packing nails around an explosive charge and running into a nursery full of Jewish children. You say tom-ah-to, I say tomato. There's no reason to judge...
Of course, we should all defer to your judgment, because unlike those taking the bastard to task, you are "someone who has read nearly every book that Vonnegut has written[!]"
He could beat his wife and rape his dog and you'd still excuse him because he flattered your intellect in high school...
Somebody who laments the loss of community and meaning, yet justifies killing of others in the name of restoring the self--ironically, through killing the self, such that any sense of self-respect is both fleeting and futile--as we're told Vonnegut does, is hopelessly confused about the meanings of self respect and community. Mere belief in goodness is never enough to convert killing into a good act: the list of objectively bad people who have been convinced that they were do-gooders reads like a who's-who of fanatical despots.
As for this country, denigrating American freedoms--while in the act of exercising the most important such freedom--is particularly idle. And moral superiority does not mean moral perfection. It simply requires a striving to it and a duty to admit shortcomings. No society in the history of the world has embarked on such a 230-year journey of moral introspection as we.
In the meantime, I'll keep driving my SUV (actually an Acura) with the American flag (well no, but maybe I should get one of those yellow ribbon magnet thingies).
Oh, and good luck on your AP English exams. I'm sure you'll place out of freshman composition if you just make sure your passion for literature shines through!
The plain truth from which the controversy springs is that Vonnegut failed to mention another central idea in his work: that just because you're brave doesn't make you right. If he'd come right out and said that we wouldn't have had a hooraw about this damn article in the first place.
When a group cannot (or fears to) wage full-scale war, stealthy acts of aggression can seem the only way to create a possibility for change in the status quo. Overtly suicidal self-sacrifice or following an order to charge into a hail of bullets are just matters of degree in the willingness to die for the cause. Culture, perhaps even abetted by genetic predisposition (especially in males), plays a role; but belief in eternal life in paradise for heroes is not limited to Muslims. For a fuller treatment of this aspect of the subject, click over to my piece Human Aggression and the Belief in Heaven and come on back.
In the abstract, it might sound innocuous -- but given the context in which he's saying it, it sounds pretty horrible to me.
Umm. The article does not give the context of Vonnegut's statements. There are only small quotes from him. The words surrounding them are what would determine whether his statements are understandable or despicable.
(I am assuming you are referring only to context in the local sense of this interview as opposed to a greater global context because without the local context the statements cannot be accurately placed within a global context.)
"He views American life as purposeless-entertainment, sex, and material goods are in the end empty. "
If America is less "purposeless" today than it was before, it is due to a decline in religious fervor. Religion may not be necessary to lead a purposeful life, but for most, it is the only compelling source of purpose. Vonnegut is naive to think people can attain a sense of purpose through family, culture, or philosophy. The items you mentioned that you say Vonnegut would support are quite momentary and superficial.
"simplistic analysis"
If Vonnegut would respect such analysis, then he would have to change his views. Instead, by labeling a critique as "simplistic," he may skirt the real issue with an out of hand dismissal. Vonnegut and others always claim issues are more "complicated," so as to avoid sharp criticism.
Dying for a cause and dying and murdering for a cause are vastly different. It is Mr.Vonnegut who has no "purpose" if he truly cannot distinguish between the two.
It's quite sad that the man who wrote one of the most blistering critiques of egalitarianism (Harrison Bergeron) has succumbed to such claptrap.
The fact is, you should know how the enemy ticks and what motivates him. I doubt anyone disagrees with that point. But understanding an Islamist's motivation is light years removed from seemingly endorsing his actions as Vonnegut has done.
There is no Earthly excuse for targeting young children regardless of your grievance. I'd like to hear how killing Jewish Israeli children in their beds or on their way to school is driven by despair and loss of self-respect. Does Chechens killing children in their school restore self-respect? How does Phillipino Muslim lose self-respect from the Israeli-Palestinian dispute? How does a converted British Muslim from the Carribean lose self-respect from the invasion of Iraq?
DA, Vonnegut does respect their beliefs, although he doesn't hold them himself. That is Vonnegut's sin. I'm sure you will find no writings from him where he respects those of American Christians, who on average, are religious. Vonnegut is a hypocrite and has joined Lenin's "useful idiot" brigade.
Excusing suicidal terrorist has almost become chic in certain circles, whether or not spurred on by anti-Bush feelings. Let's not lose sight that that Islamofascists started this war and are responsible for unleashing these "evil" tactics worldwide (Palestinian originated). If we can't distinguish between right and wrong then we have already lost.
P.S. I need to touch on the cowardice. Courageous is the civil disobedient protester who following Gandhi and MLK, risk pain and loss without hurting the enemy, taking both physical and emotional pain without complaint. These are the brave souls changed the world for the better.
This is Brave:
And this is a good working definition of bravery:
http://mcia-inc.org/MorelMCGsep05.pdf
Vonnegut doesn't have a clue.
Strong words from someone who is admittedly ignorant of all of Vonnegut's work. Of course, this is completely wrong and Vonnegut has said many times over that he respects and admires the faith of Christians of every sort, just as he does the beliefs of anyone, though he does not share them.
My reaction was that he was trying to get a rise from the crowd to demonstrate this point. The thing is, I am sure that Vonnegut is not a pacifist and recognizes necessary evil. He just belives that a) by refusing to accept our inherent selfishness and evil actions we create opportunity for future wars and b) the Iraq war was not necessary. This quote [attributed to] Nietzsche, "Beware that, when fighting monsters, you yourself do not become a monster...for when you gaze long into the abyss, the abyss gazes also into you" sums it up. From everything I've heard about him, he doesn't condemn the Allies for firebombing Dresden, only that it had to occur at all. Of course, he probably does hold us responsible for everything in Iraq because we started it. It appears that Iraqis do too, they just mostly agree it was worth it.
In fact, find me one culture based primarily on religion that was/is not utterly deplorable. Feel free to scour all of human history to answer this question.
I think self-respect and bravery are neutral. I don't want bin laden to be brave. I don't want the KKK to have self-respect.
Okay, but then what are your criteria? Vonnegut's point is that no culture is devoid of any merit, and every culture has some deplorable elements. Should you just measure the good and the bad and proclaim any culture with more of the former meritous? It seems more honest to just admit that you don't know enough about anyone's culture to make such judgments, and restrict yourself to labeling individual actions as good or bad. Vonnegut has never had a problem condemning actions as wrong and terrible, he just refuses to apply those labels to an entire culture.
Does anybody besides V. think that the terrorists really think of themselves as going out to blow up some innocent people?
Furthermore, he is referencing Horace's line, "Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori," which is bittingly sarcastic.
Finally, it wasn't hard to find the full interview, so that one can actually read what Vonnegut wrote in context. His words, while still controversial, sound a lot less idiotic.
Full Interview
That said, what does Vonnegut know about what drives a terrorist? Or Lileks for that matter. So we can only judge on the outcomes, and we, being relatively safe and relatively unoppressed, are most likely to judge against the terrorist. If for no other reason than enlightened self-interest: it is certainly in my interest not to be blown up.
Maybe people here wouldn't be having "a hooraw," but didn't a sometimes-obnoxious comedian get fired a few years ago for saying something similar, including the qualifier? I guess we can still fault him for not ensuring the appropriate context for his statement would be included (self-censoring: bad.... self-editing: good), but that seems a bit inconsistent with the anti-P.C. arguments I usually read here ("Nobody should have to take extra effort to make sure their comments are misconstrued to offend others...unless the others are my group").
I think it really goes back to what Steve said about having a debate people aren't ready for. Regardless of how inarticulate Vonnegut was when making the statement (I never liked Vonnegut much in the first place, but he's definitely a bit clumsier these days) it does seem pretty clear he was trying to get people to look beyond the simplified explanations to which they're accustomed.
He's not senile, he's cynical and like many another self-proclaimed lefty, he's into making money.
Hint: young men who have no chance of marriage because of polygamy have little to live for--especially when you tell them that if they die as martyrs they get 72 perpetual virgins for sex.
Vonnegut was also putting in a number of one line "zingers" in the interview, guaranteed to be offensive: "What is the difference between Hitler and Bush? Hitler was elected." That joke is so offensive that it does not deserve further discussion. A person who MAKES that joke deserves to be criticized and grilled.
One point, were the 9/11 attackers courageous? Is any suicide bomber courageous? They believe that they are going to be instantly transported to paradise after the briefest instant of pain...not the stuff of bravery. They acted less on courage than on faith. A courageous man/woman is one who risks their life without any belief in the hereafter.
I believe that the better word to describe the 9/11 attackers (and suicide bombers) is "dastardly" or "treacherous." They acted believing that they would receive a benefit in the hearafter. They acted against unsuspecting victims. Their actions were little different than those of the Palestinian man who murdered three Jewish tourists, chosen at random, with a knife to "avenge" the tossing of a pig's head into the courtyard of a mosque.
Any social order that believes that the slightest offense against their group is punishable by death of some random member of another group is evil. It is the obligation of Muslims to reject and denounce this kind of violence and to expel members of their social order to advocate these kinds of violent acts. An unwillingness to do so is grounds for us to view that entire social order as evil.
In fact, find me one culture based primarily on religion that was/is not utterly deplorable.
Tibet?
Well, that explains the ceaseless religious wars that ravaged the US before the twentieth century...
http://www.warpoetry.co.uk/owen1.html
The end of which says:
If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood
Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,
Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud
Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,
My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie; Dulce et Decorum est
Pro patria mori.
Does that clear it up for you literalists?
I'm not saying all wars are due to religious people who have too much time on their hands; I am saying all religious people who have too much time on their hands are trouble and a threat to peace.
The current global situation is a bit different. We have group (a), a religous/cultural/political movement which asserts, among other things, that chopping the heads off school girls is a legitimate form of political expression. Consider the antithesis of that to be held by members of group (b). Group (b) adheres to some arbitrary assumptions, such as that "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" stuff. Given that scenario, it's easy to see that the planet isn't big enough for both groups (a) and (b). "Moral superiority" doesn't come into it. Somebody, like Oscar Wilde or the wallpaper, simply has to go.
All of which means that the current altercation is - surprise! - about something. Anything written about WW1 seems a bit irrelevant. Get quotes from the Persian Wars (plenty of those available) if you must. They might be more relevant.
As for Vonnegut, the four words "Dulce et Decorum est" were commonly quoted around 1914, as a bit of Euro-jingoism. When Owen was writing only three years later, the phrase was current in English-speaking circles. It is a bit of a stretch to expect anyone alive today to remember that. So is Vonnegut just out-of-touch by 90 years, or is he a smartass? And should we care?
it's my understanding that Tibet basically enslaved its people
Could be. I don't know much about Tibet's history; I just wanted to throw it out as a possible answer to your question.
big d:
I don't think that's quite right about WWI, but not all wrong either. Certainly Germany was spoiling for a fight, for reasons that apparently had a lot to do with paranoia, though arguably that's "nothing at all." And there was at least some of that lebensraum thing going on as well.
Certainly the current situation is dramatically different, and I'm always skeptical of efforts to draw historical parallels that aren't self-evident.
So what culture do the suicidal terrorists belong to? While the only common thread I see is Islam but odd that Vonnegut chose not enlighten and identify the common culture these killers belong to. If "Vonnegut never had a problem condemning actions as terrible and wrong," am I missing something? Vonnegut actually approves of killing indiscriminate civilians because he sure hasn't condemned it? This is his solution for people seeking self respect? Your valiant defense of Vonnegut falls short of the mark and undeserving of your time.
You are right, I should pick up Vonnegut's books just to understand what appeal this misanthrope generates from his writing.
Trust me, gab, if you were to peek inside The Gallery of Regrettable Food, you wouldn't want to cook anything in there, and Lileks wouldn't show you how to anyway.
Now go back to talking about the important stuff. Sorry for the interruption.
The argument we are facing, however, is not an academic one. It is not abstract deaths we are discussing. When it comes to real people becoming real dead people, the deconstructionist critique becomes as meaningless as scholasticist arguments about angels and pinheads.
I stopped reading Vonnegut about 20 years ago, when he slipped over the edge of postmodernism into vacuity. I seem to recall that he had some rather harsh words to say at one time about the mass deaths of innocents. Perhaps he's changed his mind? Or is it only the US Army Air Corps that can possibly be held culpable for those sins? Were not the pilots and crews of all those B-25s and B-17s over Dresden also seeking self-validation?
On the other hand, the pretense of trying to avoid civilian casualties is a luxury affordable only for those with high-tech weaponry and a significant power advantage.
It's absurd to think America would *not* embrace the killing of innocents, if that was required because our opponent was far better armed and held the upper hand.
Hell, Bush has already embraced the torture of innocents. And we've certainly beaten innocents to death in slow, fantastically cruel fashion.
Not unlike the Papal States, actually. Or most any monarchy.
The problem isn't religious people with time on their hands, it's the mixture of religous and temporal power.
Has there ever been a "Christian abortion clinic suicide bomber"? I at least haven't heard of someone self-detonating outside a clinic. There have been fire-bombings (usually in the middle of the night), and various sorts of vandalism, and letter bombs, and one or two crazed snipers who did actually succeed in killing people, but no self-immolations.
without religion there wouldn't be suicide bombers
is nonsense. People who care intensely enough about something other than their own skins will willingly kill and die to protect it, and "it" doesn't have to be a religion.