What would you save: the works of Shakespeare, or an anonymous human being?

[Alka_Seltzer]

@Angel_of_the_Lord

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.

I know there are supposed to be a few lost plays, but I don’t think Freddy Got Fingered is a genuine Shakespeare.

@Angel_of_the_Lord

That I would die to save the works does not mean that I have the right to impose that on anyone else.

Social contract is a good answer. Personally, I wouldn’t be prepared to sacrifice myself for an artist’s works (putting myself at risk would be a diffferent matter), but I still chose to save Shakespeare in the poll. I don’t think I’m being hypocritical here, mearly selfish. Objectively, humankind is better off with Shakespeare’s plays than with me.

@qbadger

I don’t think we are qualified to make some ethical decisions.

Agree, I I don’t think there is a right answer here. This thread reminds me of the runaway train dilemma.

[Mangetout]

@Jimmy_Chitwood

The only reason people are important is in case they become Shakespeare. Most won’t.

Ah, but what if the Shakespeare chemical you save becomes the Hitler child?

[Jimmy_Chitwood]

Why, then the now-abandoned automobile of the person I sacrificed would have to run Hitler over, of course.

[Aspidistra]

@Clark_Cello

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.

Good point.

In a way, “Shakespeare” is just a brand. It’s a placeholder in our mind for “author of genius”. Thinking about Shakespeare, I’d guess, doesn’t evoke for most people thoughts of any specific plays or poems, but more a feeling of “hey, this guy wrote some really good stuff”. Being in favour of “Shakespeare” is a marker for being in favour of high culture in general, not just his work specifically.

If we get right down to the nitty gritty of his works, I’m not necessarily convinced that “Othello” is more valuable than “To Kill a Mockingbird”, or “Henry VIII” more than “Lysistrata”.

[Rodgers01]

@Justin_Bailey

I hate to be “that guy” (the TV Tropes page would call it The Dio) who shows up in hypothetical threads and says its a stupid question, but this is a really stupid question.

There are millions, probably billions, of copies of Shakespeare’s works in print (let’s assume, in your scenario, that we’ve regressed to some S.M. Stirling-like world, so computers are out). They are so plentiful, that people antique copies like this of his complete works are worthless.

If there’s only one copy of Shakespeare’s works left, saving the anonymous person may mean saving the last other person on Earth.

It’s not the only other person on Earth. I thought that was pretty clear from this:

@OP

Everything else in this alternative-universe scenario is the same: ie, do not assume it’s a post-apocalyptic world because there is only one copy of Shakespeare left. If you choose Shakespeare, the plays and sonnets will be immediately reprinted, performed, studied, and appreciated in exactly the same way they are today.

I’ll point to that for those complaining that a society that allows there to be only one remaining copy of Shakespeare is obviously burned out and can’t appreciate it anyways.

Or maybe to put it another way, imagine it as Autolycus imagines it:

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.

There are not intended to be any hidden “gotchas” in the question - no butterfly effects or things like that. Just, simply: would you allow the works of William Shakespeare (or Dante, or the Bible, etc.) to be lost from human civilization in order to save the life of an average, unremarkable human being.

[The_Second_Stone]

I’d save the person, and enjoy the bits and scraps of Shakespeare people remembered. Unless the random person was a Ayn Rand nut, then Shakespeare.

[Mangetout]

@qbadger

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.

The alternative is that you have to face a collection of very cute, deeply sad orphans (probably with golden hair and puppy-like eyes) and explain that you left their daddy in the burning building because of this book.

[Rysdad]

Personally, I’d chose a grilled cheese sandwich over the works of Shakespeare.

[BDoors]

@NinjaChick

@Justin_Bailey

I hate to be “that guy” (the TV Tropes page would call it The Dio) who shows up in hypothetical threads and says its a stupid question, but this is a really stupid question.

There are millions, probably billions, of copies of Shakespeare’s works in print (let’s assume, in your scenario, that we’ve regressed to some S.M. Stirling-like world, so computers are out). They are so plentiful, that people antique copies like this of his complete works are worthless.

If there’s only one copy of Shakespeare’s works left, saving the anonymous person may mean saving the last other person on Earth.

This. Hell, you can find everything Shakespeare wrote online - this stuff isn’t going anywhere.

I guess some people just can’t grasp the idea of a thought experiment, even with the OP’s careful phrasing of the question in an apparently vain attempt to fend off objections like this.

It’s like:

“Imagine A to be true: what would the consequences be?”
“But A isn’t true.”
“I know, but for the sake of an interesting discussion, pretend that it is true.”
“But it isn’t true.”
“I KNOW, BUT USE YOU IMAGINA… oh, forget it.”
Anyway, my take is “what would Shakespeare do?” I reckon the Swan of Avon would save the life and sacrifice his works.

[Grumman]

@qbadger

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.

In that case they can both burn, for all I care.

[foolscap]

It’s the choice between a great thought or a average person.
In my mind I had considered the works of Mark Twain instead of the Bard.

In this thought experiment you KNOW the person will never amount to anything
and, you KNOW the works will be GONE.
I would take the books.

[robardin]

I would save the works of Shakespeare and did not have to think a whole lot to make that choice. Because I would sacrifice myself for that cause.

[robardin]

@AClockworkMelon

From behind my computer screen it’s easy for me to say that the works of Shakespeare are priceless and that they are far more important than the life of any one person. But if you were to put me in a situation where I actually had to choose, I would save the person’s life. I couldn’t live with myself if I were to let someone die like that.

…Though I have to admit that this would very likely be the actual outcome were I put to such a choice. (Which of course is absurd, but…)

[Grumman]

@robardin

I would save the works of Shakespeare and did not have to think a whole lot to make that choice. Because I would sacrifice myself for that cause.

I think you’ve got it backwards. A willingness to throw yourself under the bus for the cause should not automatically translate into a willingness to throw other people under the bus for the cause. The former is almost noble, in an “An Hero” sort of way. The latter is just messed up.

[Umbriel2]

My personal ethical code would require me to save any anonymous person in preference to Shakespeare’s works. However, if it weren’t an anonymous person, then while I’d still save most people, I can also think of a substantial number of people whose lives I wouldn’t give priority over a Jack Chick pamphlet.

[Indistinguishable]

@Jimmy_Chitwood

The only reason people are important is in case they become Shakespeare. Most won’t.

Wow, harsh standards…

[Indistinguishable]

As for the dilemma, the way I see it is, if Shakespeare magically ceased to exist, and no one could remember him anyway, we’d just settle on using someone else as the flagship culturally important artist, and be none the wiser regarding whatever we were missing out on. (I know, an awfully fungible view of art, but it seems reasonable to me at the moment anyway…).

[Eleasarian]

I never got this worship of Shakespeare. He wrote plays. Some of them are quite good. But he’s not all that people make him out to be. We should find a better person to use as a generic “genius”.

If it were something like “all our knowledge of history before, say, 1000AD” that would be different. But the same general plot of the stories that Shakespeare wrote would show up again. They might not be as popular, or depending on your tastes, well written, but they wouldn’t disappear.

[Inner_Stickler]

@Indistinguishable

As for the dilemma, the way I see it is, if Shakespeare magically ceased to exist, and no one could remember him anyway, we’d just settle on using someone else as the flagship culturally important artist, and be none the wiser regarding whatever we were missing out on. (I know, an awfully fungible view of art, but it seems reasonable to me at the moment anyway…).

Exactly.

[RandMcnally]

I’d save the person.

I’d just let Shakespeare go just out of spite. Man did I ever hate reading those plays.