Determinism and Free Will in 'Ishmael' and 'Slaughterhouse Five'

Introduction

Determinism is the philosophical proposition that every action, event and decision is casually determined by an unbroken chain of prior occurrences. Free will is essentially understood as the capacity for one to control their actions, and to have the ability to do otherwise. But if we do live in a deterministic world, then how can we have any influence on future events? Quinn and Vonnegut examine the illusion of free will and mankind’s entitlement to their control of continuous events through deterministic and philosophical arguments. They explore the idea that free will carries moral responsibility, and without responsibility over our choices, devastation occurs.

Exploring Determinism and Free Will in 'Ishmael'

‘Ishmael’ (1992) by creditable environmentalist, Daniel Quinn, is a philosophical fiction novel largely based on a Socratic conversation, where Ishmael - a fully grown, captive gorilla - provides insight on modern society. Ishmael, who has remained captive throughout his life, represents the “Leavers” society. The Leavers choose to harmonise with the Earth and other species, only using natural resources. This contrasts with the Taker society, which is represented by Ishmael’s unnamed pupil. This pupil is the depiction of us, the human species. Ishmael emphasises the damage humans have caused to Earth through his belief in man having control over his actions in society.

The protagonist, Ishmael, proves to have greater knowledge on environmentalism than the average person, and uses this knowledge to enlighten his pupil. When discussing Ishmael during a TV interview, Quinn said: “And what ‘Ishmael’ does, from what readers have written to me, is it changes the way they see the world. And it is the vision of Ishmael, who is the gorilla, who is a spokesman for the non-human community of life on this planet, that achieves this.” Ishmael’s main concern is that the human species, no matter how powerful their position is on Earth, are too held captive; but it’s not bars that hold the species captive, it’s society. The idea of ‘Mother Culture’ plays a large role in Ishmael’s dialogue and the ways in which different cultures contrast.

The Theme of Free Will in 'Slaughterhouse-Five'

The theme of free will plays an important role in Kurt Vonnegut’s semi-autobiographical novel ‘Slaughterhouse-Five’ (1969), as Billy Pilgrim becomes a passive time-traveller and exposes the theory of self-determinism. In no particular order, Pilgrim unexpectedly travels between different moments in his life without warning. Accompanied by the outlandish aliens known as ‘Trafalmadorians’, our protagonist becomes unnerved by the inevitability of death. Billy’s approach to fateful situations is perceived in an accepting tone with little reaction towards situations out of his control. The key point of Vonnegut’s ironic and unsympathetic tone towards the massacre of the Dresden Bombing – a tragic event he witnessed - is that war itself cannot be deemed meaningful, therefore neither do our own choices.

If society is predestined to crumble, what reason is there to prevent the end of mankind as we know it? This nihilistic approach to the end of the world accompanies Vonnegut as he explains mankind is destructive and will inevitably die out, “so it goes”. Contrastingly, Quinn believes that the change in modern-society’s behaviour can prevent self-extinction, which he attempts to do through the ideologies and teachings of Ishmael.

The Effects of Humanity on the World

The Silverback Gorilla protagonist teaching the human pupil is a powerful metaphor which inverts man’s relationship with all other species, forcing us to consider the effects of our dominance over the natural world. In addition, the author challenges our belief that we are separate from other species by suspending the impossibility of man talking to a gorilla. Quinn’s choice of protagonist also emphasises the ultimate lesson: for man to strive, he must listen to the world, rather than forcing the world to listen to him. Driven by the concept of cultural oppression, Ishmael takes a step back to gain an outlook on the Taker’s way of life and how this contrasts with the lives of other species; which to a Gorilla, should be equal. This is an example of the Leavers harmonisation with other species and compatibility with the world around them.

Being captured by humans at an early age, Ishmael has been transported from zoo to zoo unwillingly by his captives. His free will has been deprived. Questioning his pupil on the topic of captivity, he asks whom of his species desires to destroy the planet. Rationally, the pupil responds without taking into consideration whether anybody aspires to do so, so concludes that nobody does. Ishmael responds: “You’re captives of a civilisation system that more or less compels you to go on destroying the world in order to live.” Ishmael believes that society, no matter how powerful their position in the food chain is, are not nearly as sustainable as they ought to be. This is because of the influence of society’s mental captor, ‘Mother Culture’, which Quinn uses to represent the society which drives a person to live a certain way, whether they desire to do so or not.

The concept of Mother Culture relates to American Philosopher, Peter wan Inwagen’s famous ‘Consequence Argument’, which is a compelling challenge against free will. To summarise, he argues that since ‘our acts are the consequence of laws of nature and events in the remote past’, and since we have no control over events before our existence ‘because neither is it up to us what the laws of nature are… the consequences of [our acts] are not up to us’. It appears that, according to this argument, no person has the power to alter how their future unfolds. Acting on free will requires alternate possibilities, but our acts are apparently only dependent on the states of the past, of which we have no control. Thus, determinism is true even for human actions, and is a convincing argument as to why we do not have free will. We can use this argument to suggest that Mother Culture retains the laws of natures in which we as a society act upon, formulating a ‘story’ that manifests what we can and cannot do.

By using Nazi Germany as an example, Ishmael explains the consequences when acting upon a story told by Mother Culture. Ishmael declares that Hitler did not only keep the millions of innocent Jews captive, but the German people too. The ‘story’ in which Hitler devised which accomplished his leadership was that of the Aryan race’s depravedness and lack of place in the world. It is this ‘story’ that manipulated the people of Nazi Germany to act upon, which altered their own nationality, politics, and social acceptance. The status quo of Germany had been forged by Hitler, which lead to millions of murders and worldwide conflict. “Even if you weren't personally captivated by the story, you were a captive all the same, because the people around you made you a captive. You were like an animal being swept along in the middle of a stampede.” – By examining a scenario where Mother Culture has held a wide range of people captive, Ishmael has exemplified the extensive influence the concept holds over society’s choices and free will.

Passive Protagonist in Kurt Vonnegut's Story

Vonnegut uses a much more passive protagonist in order to narrate his theory of free will. Billy Pilgrim, who walks through life in an obedient manner, never really takes control of his life. Even though he lands a successful job in the field of Optometry, and becomes married with two kids, his life is controlled by fate.

Billy inherits traits which Ishmael believes are fundamentally wrong with the human race. Being an extremely passive character who perceives life in a linear structure and invests little thought into his action, Billy’s free will is unconsciously vulnerable to Mother Culture’s tragic scenarios. This is highlighted many times. For instance, when Billy was a child, his father threw him into the deep end of the pool with no experience of swimming prior to the event. To the disappointment of his father, Billy decides he’d rather sit at the bottom of the pool then learn how to swim. Going against his free will, Billy’s father rescues him before he drowns. In another instance, Billy, who is highly incompetent, is drafted to fight in the Second World War, which hinders his career as an Optometrist. These events have proven Billy incapable of exercising free will. Unlike other soldiers in the second world war, Billy was content with his role as a Chaplain’s Assistant, as he refuses to fight, 'Billy wouldn't do anything to save himself”. This conveys Billy’s willingness to be dragged through life rather than having control over his own choices.

It’s through the enlightenment of Billy’s captives, the Trafalmadorians, that he becomes aware of his derailed path of life and super fictional power to time travel. As one of the aliens say to Billy, “If I hadn't spent so much time studying Earthlings, I wouldn't have any idea what was meant by ‘free will.’ I've visited thirty-one inhabited planets in the universe, and I have studied reports on one hundred more. Only on Earth is there any talk of free will.” Their perception of the fourth dimension becomes exceptionally frightening when they reveal to Billy the moment they destroy earth. “He has always pressed (the button) and he always will. We always let him, and we will always let him. The moment is structured that way.” This leaves us to question whether our actions are consequential, as the future has already happened. The deterministic viewpoint of the Trafalmadorians’ reflect Vonnegut’s as his nihilistic attitude to the end of the world proves insignificant. The sardonic saying used multiple times by Vonnegut, “so it goes”, is used in situations where fate has occurred. There is no going back. What happened has happened, and the only way to accept that is to carry on.

Furthermore, Vonnegut’s narration of the Dresden bombing emphasises his belief of fate being linked to free will through irony. “A whole city is burned down, and thousands and thousands of people are killed. And then this one American foot soldier is arrested in the ruins for taking a teapot.” – The irony is emphasised with the repetition of “thousands” conveying the exponential damage caused by the event. However, the clear focus of the quote here is on the single foot soldier, who’s fate was decided in robbing a teapot. His free will lead to his own fate, actions taken prior to his fate lead to this moment. Vonnegut’s reaction of course, is the bluntly sardonic “so it goes”. The idea of determinism is emphasised through the foot-soldier as Vonnegut strongly believes that there was a direct correlation between his fate and actions taken prior to his death.

Interestingly, some philosophers that maintain the deterministic viewpoint would argue that there are no objective chances in this world, and the foot soldier meeting his fate by such a seemingly trivial action is entirely correct in the coordination of mankind’s actions. The fate of the foot soldier remains as another irreversible event taken place that could not be altered and never will be. Vonnegut portrays the Dresden Bombing as equally significant to the timeline of the universe as the fate of the foot soldier in the grand scheme of the universe.

The Theme of Morality in the Stories

The Dresden Bombing serves as an ironic event where Billy Pilgrim holds no responsibility over his fate. As thousands died in the horrific bombing, Vonnegut clearly conveys the disillusionment war holds. When describing the consequences of the Dresden bombing, the use of symbolism is evident as Billy looks to the sky to see a bird who says, “Poo Tee Weet?”. The seemingly insignificant quote mirrors Vonnegut’s reaction to the massacre; the only appropriate reaction to the act is the bird’s jabbering itself, as no words can really describe the horrors of the Dresden Bombing. In a blog dedicated to Slaughterhouse-Five, one member wrote: “The fact that it is a question is peculiar, however this could suggest that there needs to be an answer. There is no logical or right answer to this just like there is no answer to the tragedies of war that Billy has experienced.” Vonnegut also mentions during an interview,” The destruction of Dresden was my first experience with really fantastic waste,' he explained. 'To burn down a habitable city and a beautiful one at that ... I was simply impressed by the wastefulness, the terrible wastefulness, the meaninglessness of war.” To Vonnegut, the act of war is truly reckless and a profligate thing. This conveys the author’s disagreement with free will as it can be used in such terrible ways. Therefore, it can be suggested that Vonnegut’s view on social responsibility matches the deterministic outlook on free will. However, Vonnegut may use this argument as a weapon to successful diminish the purpose of warfare. Overall the futility of war is just one theme which Vonnegut depicts as being meaningless. The use of symbolism reflects his own perception of social responsibility with relation to free will.

Furthermore, Vonnegut’s anti-war viewpoint is expressed in an interview, “I have to say that I felt no pride or satisfaction while carrying corpses from cellars to great funeral pyres while friends and relatives of the missing watched” and that “They may have thought that it served me right to do such gruesome work at gunpoint, since it was my side in the war which had made it a necessity. But who knows what they thought? Their minds may have been blank. I know mine was.” Clearly, Vonnegut shows no pride in assisting his country in the Second World War. The lack of social responsibility which lead to the death of millions serves as a reminder that humans are destructively dangerous to this planet. But instead of protesting towards the act of war, Vonnegut acts in the same way the Trafalmadorians do with the knowledge of when the world ends: unconcerned and easy-going; ready to accept fate.

According to Ishmael, our current social problems stem from our disconnection with nature during the agricultural revolution – our belief that humans possess the right to dominate the world and make it subservient to our will. The consequences of that belief have been increasingly evident over the past one hundred years as we have developed the power to apply this perspective on a global scale. With the power to alter genetics, eradicate species and cause deterioration to natural habitats, humans are undoubtedly toying with the evolutionary process. We’ve become completely dependent on supermarkets, mono-cultures — ways in which our food is gathered have become easily attainable, we may become blind to what we’re consuming, or how ethical the ways we are gathering are gone about. Because of this, the human species’ ability to sustain has declined. Oceans are filled with plastics, leading to the deaths of millions of organisms who play no role in the widespread supply of unethical sources of feed. Ishmael says to his pupil, “Everyone in your culture knows this. Man was born to turn the world into paradise, but tragically he was born flawed. And so, his paradise has always been spoiled by stupidity, greed, destructiveness, and short-sightedness.” Evidently, Ishmael believes the human species is overly ambitious, and thinks the ideology of human supremacy is a dangerous belief.

In contrast to Vonnegut’s nihilistic approach to the end of the world, Ishmael believes we can prevent it – no matter how flawed the human species is. Quinn recognises that by changing minds, a change in people’s attitude towards the preservation of Earth can be possible. He says,” I heartily endorse the goals of Culture Change. Unless our culture changes (and very dramatically), our kind faces a very brief future on this planet (and will take down millions of other species with us)” and, “When minds change, cultures change automatically.” And that’s exactly what Ishmael desires to do. Warning us of the effects of Mother Culture and to what degree our society remains captured by dangerous ideologies; as well as the distinct differences between the human species’ incompatibility with the natural world, Ishmael emphasises mankind’s unrealistic attitude to transforming the world and the laws of nature from whence it began. Whether we’re on the brink of a second renaissance or simply settling into the age of technology, Ishmael warns us that humans must remain aware of their impact on the environment, as without the Leaver society, the Takers cease to exist.

In the end, Ishmael the gorilla dies. This is symbolic of the responsibilities saving the world carries whilst being passed from the Leavers to the Takers. Mankind now bears the responsibility of spreading Ishmael’s message. He reads the first page of Ishmael’s notebook to discover, “WITH MAN GONE, WILL THERE BE HOPE FOR GORILLA?” and the other side saying, “WITH GORILLA GONE, WILL THERE BE HOPE FOR MAN?” What these signs say in conjunction is that life is entirely dependent on life. Without one or the other, civilisation will collapse. For this reason, Ishmael dissolves mankind’s ideology around ruling the world.

Conclusion

Quinn's ideas are fairly convincing; it's hard to disagree that unrestrained population growth and an obsession with conquest and control of the environment are among the key issues of our times. The award-winning novel written in 1991 only becomes more relevant as time passes. There’s evidently an increase in political movement concerning climate change, plastic pollution and other ways society remains unsustainable. The truths analysed by Ishmael are ones that we must accept if we are to continue the human race. I believe the novel requires readers to think deeply about our position on Earth. We are constantly reminded of the damage to Earth mankind has caused, yet an insignificant amount of effort goes into preventing that damage. The fact that millions of people became manipulated by Hitler’s ideologies demonstrates how vulnerable society is to barbaric ideologies. This makes me wonder what the world will think of our generation in one hundred years’ time. Perhaps we’ll be labelled as destructive rather than progressive.

Gaining hands on experience in the destructiveness of mankind after the Dresden Bombing, Vonnegut makes it clear that the concept of free will is preposterous. If Billy Pilgrim were to do as he pleased, there would certainly be a contrast in the outcome of his life. The teachings of the Trafalmadorians convey Vonnegut’s ideology behind the illusion of free will and demonstrate humanity’s detachment from the reality of the world around them. Humans are the only beings to believe in the concept of free will, yet our ability to make our own choices in society is hindered. This is conveyed through Billy’s experiences in war and the fourth dimension. From the ravaging bombing and endless casualties; the immoral act of warfare and theft of a teapot, the only intelligent response to mankind’s unintelligible actions is “Poo-Tee-Weet?” It can be suggested that to Vonnegut, the belief of free will is merely a façade in which our choice of action is controlled by fate.

Quinn and Vonnegut clearly convey their concerns regarding our species, but contrast in how they depict the outcome of civilisation. Is mankind’s eventual downfall inevitable and already set in time? Or can we learn from previous mistakes and maintain a sustainable present? Either way, we can learn from both novels that the world is not subservient to our will; we, as humans, must recognise that a collective culture change is necessary in order to continue the human species.