Shakespeare vs human

Ender · Post by **Ender** » 2006-07-22 02:00pm

On another board I frequent, the discussion has come up that, if you were in a burning building and you only had time to save either one random person, or the last copy of the works of Shakspeare in existance, which would you save.

For me this is retarded - you save the person. However, the poll there is almost in dead heat. So I'm interested in the results and justifications here. Particularily the justifications, there those for Shakspeare are talking about cultural impact and such without being very clear.

Luzifer's right hand · Post by **Luzifer's right hand** » 2006-07-22 02:15pm

WTF? I'm kinda fond of Shakspeares work and a real bookworm but no work of fiction is worth the life of a person.

Ender · Post by **Ender** » 2006-07-22 02:26pm

Luzifer's right hand wrote:WTF? I'm kinda fond of Shakspeares work and a real bookworm but no work of fiction is worth the life of a person.

++http://www.forumopolis.com/showthread.php?t=28379

A number of people disagree

El Moose Monstero · Post by **El Moose Monstero** » 2006-07-22 02:33pm

Get me an infinite number of monkeys, and we can save the person with our culture secure.

Seriously though, stories can be rewritten - the basic plot ideas are probably so often repeated that someone could probably go away and rewrite half of the shakespeare plays. And even if they were lost to the world, does that stop someone from writing something with equal staying power and equal renown in ten years time?

Save the person, I don't see how you can condemn someone to death on the basis that the remnant cultural contribution of a centuries dead author is worth more than their lives and the role that they may have in future life - even if it is 'nothing more' than raising a family.

NoXion · Post by **NoXion** » 2006-07-22 02:34pm

Even if there were no other copies of this hypothetical work of Shakespeare, a single human life is worth more than any potential benefit from the work.

Now, a piece of paper with the cure for AIDS written on it on the other hand...

Post by **NecronLord** » 2006-07-22 02:49pm

Much as I might want to save Shakespere, there's no justification for it. Also, if they're the last copy in existance, they're probably not likely to be appreciated anyway.

Now, if you make it a chimpanzee or something...

Civil War Man · Post by **Civil War Man** » 2006-07-22 03:17pm

I was never too fond of Shakespeare to begin with. I'd save the person, hands down.

Adrian Laguna · Post by **Adrian Laguna** » 2006-07-22 03:55pm

I really like Shakespeare, but I believe that at the heart of the stories is human experience and the human "soul" as it were. They can be rewritten. A lost human life is gone, forever. I'd save the person.

Ender · Post by **Ender** » 2006-07-22 04:06pm

I'm interested in the reasoning of the 3 who voted for the literature

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2006-07-22 04:34pm

I voted person, however, if the 'person' is 300lbs and would lead me to my death, the 2lbs. of book is looking very tempting.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2006-07-22 04:46pm

Viewing Shakespeare as more valuable than a human life is not "cool evil guy," it's perspective. Any great work of art is more valuable than any one of us individually. Part of the reason life is valuable is that it affords the opportunity to experience great art and literature.
Life is not always the correct choice. Trust me, if I were in the burning building and saw someone trying to decide whether to save me or the art, I would do everything I could to convince them to go get the books.

The arrogance is enormous there. I particularly like the bolded part (bolding via me

). Some how, I just gotta believe he/she is talking out of his/her ass. Burning to death is one of the most horrible ways to go, witness those who took a 100 story dive out of the WTC instead of burning alive.

(edit) I also see a lot of people claiming some 'worth' to the lititure as opposed to the human/victim. Yet I'm not seeing any one try to quantify these great 'additions' to human life and why it should be thus elevated above human life.

Molyneux · Post by **Molyneux** » 2006-07-22 05:09pm

I really, really cannot make a choice in this situation.
Hell, I have problems with destroying one copy of a book, even if it's not a particularly good one. (I tried to bring myself to rip up a copy of Ethan Frome - the worst book I've ever read - and couldn't bear to.) When it comes to some of the greatest works in the English language being lost forever, versus the life of one human being...

If I were the human who, if saved from the building, would doom Shakespeare to destruction...I'd probably tell the rescuer to get the manuscript. It's just more valuable. But I can't make that choice for someone else.

Ender · Post by **Ender** » 2006-07-22 05:13pm

Knife wrote: (edit) I also see a lot of people claiming some 'worth' to the lititure as opposed to the human/victim. Yet I'm not seeing any one try to quantify these great 'additions' to human life and why it should be thus elevated above human life.

Yeah, they got pretty pissed when I asked for examples.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2006-07-22 05:19pm

Ender wrote:
Knife wrote: (edit) I also see a lot of people claiming some 'worth' to the lititure as opposed to the human/victim. Yet I'm not seeing any one try to quantify these great 'additions' to human life and why it should be thus elevated above human life.
Yeah, they got pretty pissed when I asked for examples.

Yeah, I got to your posts on that in a page or two after I posted that blurb. I take it your buttercup *bites lip not to crack joke*. As of yet, no one has quantified it, rather just lashed out mindlessly. In that, I find humor, that they like to play 'intelectual' and yet still get all frothy over your question to actually explain their shit.

Grand Admiral Thrawn · Post by **Grand Admiral Thrawn** » 2006-07-22 05:50pm

That thread is pretty fucking depressing. I know a lot of people put little value on human life, but sacrificing some poor bastard for a bunch of books?

Post by **Ghost Rider** » 2006-07-22 06:22pm

Sorry, Shakespeare produced some good material but in the end? It was entertainment. Sorry, random person wins.

And for the other thread, I wonder how they would feel if we said "Oh, wait...you're the random idjit who gets to be whacked..."

Azrael · Post by **Azrael** » 2006-07-22 06:27pm

When it comes to some of the greatest works in the English language being lost forever, versus the life of one human being...

Shakespeare's impact on the literary community really is unquestionably great indeed, if he could 500 years later inspire other to actually question the value of human life versus his works!

Is it clear that shakespeare was a literary genius, even the greatest writer of his period? Maybe, and I say "maybe" not from a cynical standpoint, but from an ignorant one. I honestly know nothing of the mans work, beyond the names of the plays he's inspired.

Is it clear that he was the greatest writer of all time? That is to say, no other writer past, present or future could rival or surpass him? Thats quite a standard to set against him, but I argue that for his works to equal a human life in value, they must at least reach this standard.

If not, then the opportunity is there for someone in the future to surpass him. Not to spit on the quality of his works, but you can always write another book or play. The conventions for storytelling are here now just as they were then and as long as there are human beings in the world, there will always be great and greater writers among them. The job is expendable, but the person isn't. Human beings really are each one of a kind and once a father, a brother, a sister or a mother is gone, they cannot be replaced, at least not as easily as a book or play can.

So, no. Shakespeare's works are not worth the loss of a single human being, so I would let them burn.

Molyneux · Post by **Molyneux** » 2006-07-22 07:30pm

Ghost Rider wrote:Sorry, Shakespeare produced some good material but in the end? It was entertainment. Sorry, random person wins.

And for the other thread, I wonder how they would feel if we said "Oh, wait...you're the random idjit who gets to be whacked..."

I'd say that this poll needs that as an option.

rhoenix · Post by **rhoenix** » 2006-07-22 07:39pm

Why can't one grab the person, and have the person grab the book? That way both could be saved.

However, were the book too heavy, it would become dinner for the fire - I'd pick the person to save. But couldn't the attempt be made to get both, if possible?

Darth Garden Gnome · Post by **Darth Garden Gnome** » 2006-07-22 07:48pm

rhoenix wrote:But couldn't the attempt be made to get both, if possible?

That would defeat the purpose of the question. So, no, you can't.

Naturally, one would save the person over the stories.

rhoenix · Post by **rhoenix** » 2006-07-22 07:54pm

Darth Garden Gnome wrote:
rhoenix wrote:But couldn't the attempt be made to get both, if possible?
That would defeat the purpose of the question. So, no, you can't.

Ah, but the only constraint listed in the OP was the element of time. In my mind, it would take longer to drag a person out of the building that it would to grab a book and run.

Because of this, I'd at least make the attempt to get both.

Darth Garden Gnome wrote:Naturally, one would save the person over the stories.

Of course - a person has far more potential than a book.

Darth Garden Gnome · Post by **Darth Garden Gnome** » 2006-07-22 07:58pm

rhoenix wrote:Ah, but the only constraint listed in the OP was the element of time. In my mind, it would take longer to drag a person out of the building that it would to grab a book and run.

Because of this, I'd at least make the attempt to get both.

Again, this defeats the purpose of the scenario. You aren't supposed to have enough time to run back in. The idea is that you must make a choice between one or the other.

rhoenix · Post by **rhoenix** » 2006-07-22 08:05pm

Darth Garden Gnome wrote:Again, this defeats the purpose of the scenario. You aren't supposed to have enough time to run back in. The idea is that you must make a choice between one or the other.

Ah - I see what you mean. I wouldn't run back in for the book - I'd only be making one trip. What I meant was that if I could grab both person and book in the first trip, I would. If I couldn't carry both at once, or if the person couldn't hold onto the book without slowing both of us too much, then I'd leave the book behind.

Post by **weemadando** » 2006-07-22 08:06pm

Well, I save the person. The literature is tempting, but its not worth a human life. I might try and shove Henry V, Midsummer Nights Dream and MacBeth into my pockets while legging it, but I'm not going to squander human life for it.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2006-07-22 08:26pm

rhoenix wrote:
Darth Garden Gnome wrote:Again, this defeats the purpose of the scenario. You aren't supposed to have enough time to run back in. The idea is that you must make a choice between one or the other.
Ah - I see what you mean. I wouldn't run back in for the book - I'd only be making one trip. What I meant was that if I could grab both person and book in the first trip, I would. If I couldn't carry both at once, or if the person couldn't hold onto the book without slowing both of us too much, then I'd leave the book behind.

The wording of the OP is vague, but the whole excersize is to determin which is more importent; human life or an article. That some like the article more than a vague and unidentified human life, the sick bitches are choosing it.

It's fairly damning that they do.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Shakespeare vs human

Would you save the last copy os Shakespeare's works or a random person?

Shakespeare vs human