Kurt Vonnegut Served as a sensitive cell in the organism of American Society during the 1960's. His work alerted the public about the absurdity of modern warfare and an increasingly mechanized and impersonal society in which humans were essentially worthless and degenerated. The satirical tone and sardonic humor allowed people to read his works and laugh at their own misfortune.
Vonnegut was born on November 11, 1922, in Indianapolis, where he was reared. His father was an architect, as his grandfather had been. Though the family's fortune was eroded during the Depression-his father went without an architectural commission from 1929 to 1940-they were well-to-do. Kurt attended Shortridge High School, where he was the editor of the nations oldest daily high school paper, the Echo. (((high school quote)))
Vonnegut was expected to become a scientist, and when he went to Cornell in 1940, he chose, at the urging of his father, to major in chemistry. (((college quote))) "Chemistry was everything then," he said. "It was a magic word in the thirties. The Germans, of course, had chemistry, and they were going to take apart the universe and put it together again. At Cornell, he was the managing editor and columnist for its daily paper, the Sun. Among interned as a prisoner of war in Dresden, Germany. It was here that he experienced what would later become the basis for one of his best-selling novels, Slaughterhouse-Five. "(Dresden) was the first fancy city I'd ever seen. Then a siren went off-it was February 13, 1945-and we went down two stories under the pavement into a big meat locker. It was cool there, with (animal) cadavers hanging all around. When we came up the city was gone." This experience, or rather, disaster, was the Allied firebombing of Dresden in which over 130,000 people, mostly citizens, died for no apparent reason. Despite the horror of the incident, he maintains that the experience did not change his way of thinking, but rather gave him another viewpoint from which to observe the absurdity and cruelty of the human race. "The importance of Dresden in my life has been considerably exaggerated because my book about it became a best seller." (p. 94 CWV)
Vonnegut returned to the United States determined tp be a writer, and to deal with the experience of Dresden, though it was nearly 25 years before he was able to do so.
Kurt Vonnegut Jr., a World War II veteran and author of the literary masterpiece Slaughterhouse-Five, was one of the many there to witness the destruction of the city of Dresden located in Germany, and one of the few to survive to tell the gruesome details. Most of his writing was used to encourage those with anti-war mindsets to take a stand, and to inform everyone else of the damage that is done when a nation goes to war. He uses his books to remind people that war is gruesome, gory, and violent, and the glamorous aspect of it is simply a disturbed part of one’s imagination that truly does not exist. He reminds people of the visceral hatred that comes with the package of war; of how Germans used the fat of dead Jews to make soap and candles and how there was a scarce food supply for prisoners during the second World War, or possibly any war for that matter. The fire-bombing of Dresden lead to the unnecessary deaths of over 60,000 civilians and prisoners of war (POW’s). Homes, lives, and much more were destroyed and the damage was almost unfathomable. The POW’s that survived the disaster were ordered to stay behind and remove the dead bodies. Because there were so many of them and the stench was so putrid, most of the bodies were cremated by the soldiers and left exactly where they lay in a pile of ashes. Such a scene seems painful for Vonnegut to look back on and he demonstrates his distaste for such things as war with his novels, especially Slaughterhouse-Five. Kurt Vonnegut used the story of Slaughterhouse-Five to explain the after effects of war, why a nation should never go to war, and what such violence will ultimately lead to.
Kurt Vonnegut, Jr. was born on November 11, 1922, in Indianapolis, Indiana to Kurt Vonnegut, Sr. and Edith Lieber Vonnegut. He had an older brother named Bernard and an older sister named Alice. Kurt, Sr. was a well-known architect in the city and Edith was the daughter of a wealthy local family. The Vonneguts had been in Indianapolis for several generations, and were well-off, respected members of the community. Unlike the characters in most of his books, Vonnegut's early childhood was extremely privileged. It wasn't until the stock market crash of 1929 that he experienced the type of life that he would go on to write about in the future: the middle Middle Class.
Thirdly, Marquis concludes from the last two premises and says that if you kill a fetus then it is prima facie seriously morally wrong of you. By killing off a human being’s potential values it is cruel, especially to children because they are defenseless. Then, Marquis asserts that if fetuses and adults are in the same moral categories then the fetus can only be aborted if there is a serious moral concern. In the beginning, Marquis proclaims that there are special cases like rape and the mom’s life being threatened that it would override the “moral wrongness” of abortion. So if the premises that Marquis stated above are all true then we ought to accept his conclusion. The first premise expresses that if you kill someone then one is taking away from his or her future like ours. Marquis statement on the first premise is one we ought to accept because obviously if the person is dead they cannot have a future like ours. The
Kurt Vonnegut’s anti-war science fiction novel entitled, Slaughter House Five otherwise known as “The Children’s Crusade” or “A Duty Dance with Death,” is a classic example of Vonnegut’s eccentric and moving writing capabilities.Originally published in 1969, Slaughterhouse-Five pays tribute to Vonnegut’s experiences in World War Two, as an advanced scout in the 106th infantry division, a prisoner of war and witness to the firebombing of Dresden on February 13th, 1945 in which 135,000 people were killed, making it the greatest man-caused massacre of all times.This novel illustrates the cruelties and violence of war along with the potential for compassion in human nature and all that it encompasses.
Vonnegut's writing style throughout the novel is very flip, light, and sarcastic. The narrator's observations and the events occurring during the novel reflect a dark view of humanity which can only be mocked by humor. At the beginning of the novel the narrator is researching for a book he is writing. The book was to be about the day the atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima and the lives of the people who created the bomb. The narrator travels through the plot of the story, with characters flying in and out, in almost a daze. He is involved in events which are helplessly beyond his control, but which are inevitably leading to a destination at the end.
Vonnegut had tremendous difficulty writing this novel. He says, "I thought it would be easy for me to write about the destruction of Dresden, since all I would have to do would be to report what I had seen" (Vonnegut 2). He did not count on his emotions interfering with his attempts at a factual and logical report of such atrocities. It took Vonnegut twenty years to directly face his private demon of the firebombing of Dresden in the form of this novel. He had trouble recalling any memories of substance about his time in Dresden. It could be said that he was blinded by the firebombs of Dresden. It was not until Vonnegut returned to the sight of the bombing twenty years later, along with one of his war buddies, that he was able to recall the disastrous and horrific incidents in Dresden. The novel served as a form of therapy for Vonnegut; it enabled him to examine the events of the past that impacted on his life, and to come to terms with them. Vonnegut chooses to focus the novel on events surrounding the firebombing of Dresden, Germany. As James Lundquist explains:
...t,” or the second consideration, is that there is no empirical way of deducing what the fetus’s future existence will be like, and we are back to working under the same sort of broad assumptions he considers a problem with the current pro-choice/anti-abortionist paradigm. I do agree that Marquis is correct when he says that these broad and narrow assumptions bring us difficulty in solving the problem; I do not agree with the solution that he proposes. He has, however, managed to provide a much less problematic approach to the entire situation as his method of deductive reason produces a more logically valid response than either side of the divide with the current abortion argument, but it is only slightly more epistemologically respectable than the current arguments, as they all utilize internal knowledge in place of empiricism at some point or another (Chisolm 3).
Kurt Vonnegut was born November 11, 1922 in Indianapolis Indiana. His parents were Kurt Vonnegut Sr. and Edith Leiber. He graduated from Shortridge High School in Indianapolis where he was editor of the school newspaper. After graduation in 1940, he moved on to Cornell University in Ithaca, New York where he took classes for biochemistry. In 1942, he enlisted in the army as an Infantry Battalion Scout. Later he was trained by Carnegie Institute and University of Tennessee to become a mechanical engineer. In 1944, Kurt’s mother committed suicide on May 14. He returns home briefly, then was captured in the Battle of the Bulge. While working in a factory in Dresden, Germany, Vonnegut picked up his materials for Slaughterhouse Five. After this he married Jane Mary Cox on September 1, 1945. Working as a police reporter, he studied Anthropology at the University of Chicago, but his thesis was rejected. In 1947, his son Mark was born, later, in 1949 his daughter Edith. He then became a publicist for General Electric in Schenectady, New York, but in 1950 he quit GE, and moved to Cape Cod to write. He published Player Piano in 1952. His third child, Nanette was born in 1954. Between 1954 and 1956 he taught English at Hopefield school, worked for an ad agency, and opened the very first Saab dealership in the great United States. Next, Kurt was rocked with a number of close deaths. His father passed away in 1957 on October 1, his sister and his brother-in-law die in 1958. He then adopted his three oldest nieces and nephews. Kurt still found time to write and Cat’s Cradle was published in 1962. From 1965 to 1967, he took up a residency at University of Iowa Writer’s Workshop and published Pearls Before Swine. Vonnegut wanted a closer look in Dresden before he wrote the novel Slaughterhouse Five, to he went back to Dresden on a Guggenheim Fellowship. He finished the novel in 1969. His education was furthered after he taught creative writing at Harvard and received his master’s degree from University of Chicago for Cat’s Cradle.
Kurt Vonnegut was born in Indianapolis, Indiana on November 11, 1922. After attending Cornell University from 1941-43 Vonnegut served in World War II and was captured during the Battle of the Bulge. As a prisoner of war, he survived the fire bombing of Dresden by Allied forces on 13 February, 1945 in an underground meat-storage cellar. When he emerged the next morning, Vonnegut was put to work pulling corpses from the ruins of the desolated city once known as "the Venice of the North." In one night the horrific fire-bombing of Dresden killed more people than the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined, more than 135,000 in all. Vonnegut's first-hand experiences of this, one of the darkest episodes in human history, would later provide the basis for his most influential work, Slaughterhouse Five (1969), though it would take him more than twenty years to come to terms with his wartime experiences and complete the novel.
Don Marquis is a philosopher arguing that any form of abortion is immoral. His original thesis states: In the overwhelming majority of cases, deliberate abortions are seriously immoral. He begins by stating why killing is wrong in three statements. He states, “killing is wrong because it brutalizes the killer, it is a loss to others, and it robs the victim of all the experiences, activities, projects, and enjoyments that would otherwise have constituted one’s future” (68). The first two statements do not address the fetus, but the last statement is very arguable, so Marquis emphasizes his argument on this premise. Depriving anybody of their future has many consequences. Some parts of a person’s future are valued now and some parts could be valued later. Therefore, it is wrong to kill any adult human because it is a loss of future (which has value). He addresses the questions of personhood by stating that fetuses have the potential to be humans. Therefore, killing a fetus is depriving the fetus of having a
Marquis’s argument that it is immoral to kill, and abortion is wrong because it deprives one of a valuable future has a lot of problems in my eyes that does not make his view on anti-abortion solid. The lack of arguments that do not raise questions that seem to go unanswered make it hard to be persuaded to change a pro-abortionist mind or even be open to understanding where Marquis’s arguments lead. His “what if” argument leaves room for anyone opposing to “what if” in any direction which is not grounds for an effective argument and hurts Marquis’s because a lot of the questions go unanswered in his essay.
Marquis believes abortion to be extremely immoral. However he mentions that there are exceptions in rare but certain circumstances where abortion is acceptable. We can infer that these instances would include situations that would put the mother or child at serious risk by keeping the fetus. He is frustrated that this idea has received minimal support recently. As a result he wants to influence change in society in hopes of receiving the support and publicity this topic deserves. Marquis’ primary argument stems from the idea of killing in general. He explains it is immoral to kill an adult because it prematurely deprives the human of something they may have valued at the time they were killed, as well as something they may had valued in the future. Although the victim may not realize it at the time of their death, they certainly had a valuable future ahead of them to experience which has been cut short. We are the only ones who can decide what is valuable to them; in this case we value some things more than others, and this concept differs from person to person. For example, in the present I value the life I am given and the opportunity I have to earn my degree at Villanova University while also valuing my future as well knowing that I have a chance to be successful in the future. Although I have not succeeded yet, I still value that opportunity I have and the life I’m capable of achieving through earning a degree. Therefore, he connects this same theory to the life of a fetus. By killing the fetus the result is the same, we are depriving it of its futur...
Would you want someone to take away the ability to live from you? Or can you imagine not having this life? Babies or Embryos, on the other hand, don’t have any choices like you under the mother’s womb. They can’t resist or even stand up for themselves, if the mother decides to get an abortion. Abortion is an option given to women who become pregnant. Many consider it, and many decide to have one. They believe that it is their right to choose whether or not abortion is right for them, and the baby is just helpless. Their whole future has vanished from this world. Considering the Marquis’ arguments on abortion, syllogism, and some philosophy like Kantian, I believe that abortion is immoral.
In Slaughterhouse-Five, Vonnegut expresses one of his ideas by focusing on the emotional impact of wars, instead of historical details. Because of this, Slaughterhouse-Five has received criticism for not being an accurate account of the Dresden bombing. There is no cause and effect in the book, not even a climax that is common to making it a good work of fiction. Vonnegut puts together the novel with small episodes and scatters them throughout the book without an actual timeline – the readers are traveling with Billy being spastic in time, living in the past, the present, and the future. It is, after all, not a history book but a science fiction novel. Vonnegut clarifies the logic of the novel’s style through the Tralfamadorians, who explain to Billy the layout of their books: “There is no beginning, no middle, no end, no suspense, no moral, no causes, no effects. What we love in our books are the depths of many marvelous moments seen all at one time” (Vonnegut 112). It is clear that the Tralfamadorians...
The author Don Marquis wants to prove that abortion is immoral without taking into consideration extreme cases, while Thomson says that abortion is justified in some cases. Clearly killing is so wrong but Marquis argument avoids the ambiguity of why abortion happened. I strongly believe that it is not fair to compare a fetus’ life with an adult. Marquis 's ethical approach is general, because he says that abortion is ethically similar to committing a crime by killing somebody. While Thompson supports her arguments by saying that abortion is justified in cases such as rape and when the mother 's life, which is the most important here, is in danger. I agree that everyone has the right to life and it is immoral and so unethical to deprive that right from anyone. However, abortion is justified in some cases, which is the best possible option available for the mother. I strongly believe that ethics and religion plays a vital role in making such a decision because abortion is forbidding in some religions such as Islam, abortion is not acceptable after eight weeks of pregnancy. Another possible reason why abortion can’t be performed is because of the law of some countries such as Egypt that reject abortion and consider it as a crime that a mother might face some time in prison. So there are a lot more into this argument that needs more