Is dying for your country in wartime altruistic? Honorable?
Vonnegut feels that war is meaningless – does he therefore believe that it is not altruistic or honorable to die for your own country? I would say no. Vonnegut, through the progression of the characters in his novel is more specifically trying to criticize the men who are sent over to war, and are still clueless about what they are fighting for. With the exception of Edgar Derby, every soldier depicted in Slaughterhouse Five seems oblivious, naïve, child-like- especially Billy. At one point, Billy is dressed in a blue curtain toga; shiny silver boots and has a fur muff. He is also once described as a “flamingo” and Vonnegut is continually referencing how “clownish” Billy is. His point in alienating Billy is to illuminate the foolishness of sending children to war, who don’t even recognize what they are fighting for. David Friedman adequately reflects Vonnegut’s sentiments towards “The Children’s Crusade” in this famous quote:
“The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is generally employed only by small children and large nations.”
How can someone be considered altruistic if they die for a cause they didn’t know they were fighting for? I personally don’t think this act is altruistic. War in general, is foolish and romanticized. I think one of the biggest ways war is romanticized is through the thought that it is so honorable to fight and die for one’s country. While I greatly respect the soldiers fighting for my freedom, Vonnegut prompted me to ponder the purpose of war. The answer? There is no purpose, only pointless brutality, destruction of lives, and in the end, you’re only left with “three armies - an army of cripples, an army of mourners, and an army of thieves. “
