I’d save the human. Shakespeare may have been a genius, but in due time someone else will come along to replace him. His works are not invaluable, but a human life is.
Out with the old, in with the new. Bye bye Shakespeare.
I’d save Shakespeare in a heartbeat, and like someone else said, I’d probably give up my own life to save them. There are a gazillion people on this planet, we can spare one, and he can go down as a noble sacrifice.
I suppose I would have to save the human being, but it would be the most wrenching thing I ever did, and I’m glad that there is precisely zero chance I would ever have to make that choice in reality.
And count me as another who would happily sacrifice myself to save Shakespeare.
I need to know if killing Shakespeare is retro active.
For instance, does that mean that any movie, show or sitcom I’ve ever watched that was directly or indirectly influenced by Shakespeare will be gone too and wiped from my memory?
I can’t help thinking about the “butterfly effect” in this scenario.
The books, no contest. There are plenty of people, most of them ignorant stupid assholes.
Save the person. No contest.
I’m intrigued by the couple of people who have said something along the lines of “An anonymous stranger, I’d even kill myself”. I think that should go the other way. The decision to sacrifice someone else is much more morally weighty a matter than the decision to sacrifice oneself. I can sacrifice myself for whatever I feel is worth it, but for me to sacrifice someone else, I better have a reason that is worth it to a lot more than just me.
Also, for all the people who voted for Shakespeare, I wonder how many of them have read a complete play of his, or attended a performance, in the last three years. I’m sure many of them have, but I would bet many also haven’t.
The person, no question. There are plenty of great writers out there; while it would be a loss to lose his work, it would be much like losing all of Michelangelo’s work. Regrettable, but not devastating to our culture, I think.
Ask me about the works of a scientist whose inventions have saved thousands of lives and I might have to think about it differently.
Books are things. They are never worth the life of any person who desires to live.
If it was a question of saving Shakespeare’s works before they had been published, I’d save them over Mr or Ms average. Shakespeare had a great deal of positive impact on cultural development. As a widely read humanist, I find it entirely plausable his works have indirectly saved more than a few lives. If it happened tomorrow, I’d still probably go for the Shakespeare omnibus, but put me in a burning building and I’m not going to make a considered decision.
These sorts of questions aren’t easy to answer, and usually show there are holes in our ethical outlook. The instinctive response seems to be “life takes precedence”, but the question can always be tweaked. What if it was a choice between saving all works of literature and Dave?
This. Hell, you can find everything Shakespeare wrote online - this stuff isn’t going anywhere.
That said: One guy is just one guy. Shakespeare’s work is of not just literary merit, but tremendous social and historical value. Faced with the decision between a collection of works that will continue to inspire generations of people (whether through beauty of language or moral questions raised within the plays), and some guy who statistically speaking will never accomplish anything particularly interesting, Shakespeare is a pretty easy choice.
I like to reconsider the question as if the choice was between a human or between magically erasing every copy of S’s corpus from ever existing. That eliminates the ‘well it’s the last copy so it’s not worth much anymore anyway’ argument.
The only reason people are important is in case they become Shakespeare. Most won’t.
I don’t much like people OR shakespeare. However, that random person having the same effect on human civilisation seems… implausible.
I’m pretty sure we wouldn’t have ‘Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are dead’, for example. Can’t have that.
No.
The human being.
Nope. The karmic randomizer at work in this universe could well pick my daughter or my mum. I’m too selfish to want to lose either of them for what, thousands, tens of thousands of the finest mind hours humankind has to offer.
I’m McCoy to NinjaChick or Alka Seltzer’s Spock.
I love writing, reading, literature, knowledge, and everything that goes along with that. But I’d choose the person. Without question.
Social contract. I wouldn’t want to die so that Freddy Got Fingered survives; therefore, I should not allow someone to die just so that Shakespeare’s works will survive. That I would die to save the works does not mean that I have the right to impose that on anyone else.
You may have saved the person’s life, however for the remainder of which he or she will always live under the shadow of being responsible for the destruction of the legacy of the finest playwright known to mankind. That is a terrible burden to gift someone. Even worse in the case where they would have chosen to sacrifice themselves to save the work if they knew beforehand the full consequences.
I don’t think we are qualified to make some ethical decisions. This hypothetical is one of such. Is human life priceless? Is it more valuable than anything?
Just reading the heading, I would have picked Shakespeare. But if I were actually in a burning building, there’s no way I could choose to take a book over a person, even if I think in some academic way that the book is more valuable than the person.
If they’re anonymous and without fault, I’d pick the person. I’d only consider saving the books if the person got themselves into this situation through stupidity.
Shakespeare. Sorry. And I HATE Shakespeare.
Joe