Shakespeare vs human

Noble Ire · Post by **Noble Ire** » 2006-07-22 08:39pm

Whether one really likes his style or not (of what I've read of him, the only play I really enjoyed was Much Ado About Nothing), Shakespeare's works bear signficance in that they can serve to inspire new authors in the creation of new entertainment and cultural fixtures, and for that, they do have a somewhat extraordinary value. However, the same can be said of any number of great authors, and even some not so great ones; in short, even if Shakespeare's light disappears from the world, others, many inspired by the Bard themselves, will remain. Now, if the the book in question contained the sum total of all human literature, philosophy, and culture for all time, I might have a different answer, but as it stands, the random person wins out.

rhoenix · Post by **rhoenix** » 2006-07-22 08:47pm

Knife wrote: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.

True. If I absolutely had to choose, I'd pick the person, but at least make the attempt to get both, is basically the view I was evincing.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2006-07-22 08:50pm

Noble Ire wrote:Whether one really likes his style or not (of what I've read of him, the only play I really enjoyed was Much Ado About Nothing), Shakespeare's works bear signficance in that they can serve to inspire new authors in the creation of new entertainment and cultural fixtures, and for that, they do have a somewhat extraordinary value. However, the same can be said of any number of great authors, and even some not so great ones; in short, even if Shakespeare's light disappears from the world, others, many inspired by the Bard themselves, will remain. Now, if the the book in question contained the sum total of all human literature, philosophy, and culture for all time, I might have a different answer, but as it stands, the random person wins out.

If all art and culture were obliterated tomarrow, new art and culture would start to spring up sometime Monday. It's not worth killing innocents for, nor allowing innocents to die from lack of action.

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 2006-07-22 08:57pm

I hate people, but I hate Shakespeare more. The human survives.

Noble Ire · Post by **Noble Ire** » 2006-07-22 09:04pm

Knife wrote:
Noble Ire wrote:Whether one really likes his style or not (of what I've read of him, the only play I really enjoyed was Much Ado About Nothing), Shakespeare's works bear signficance in that they can serve to inspire new authors in the creation of new entertainment and cultural fixtures, and for that, they do have a somewhat extraordinary value. However, the same can be said of any number of great authors, and even some not so great ones; in short, even if Shakespeare's light disappears from the world, others, many inspired by the Bard themselves, will remain. Now, if the the book in question contained the sum total of all human literature, philosophy, and culture for all time, I might have a different answer, but as it stands, the random person wins out.
If all art and culture were obliterated tomarrow, new art and culture would start to spring up sometime Monday. It's not worth killing innocents for, nor allowing innocents to die from lack of action.

Note the "might". I was simply saying that I'd probably have more reservations about my choice, but it would in all likelihood remain the same.

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

I don't see a real dillema here. Art is cool and all, but... I mean... so what? Art is only useful in its ability to entertain humans, and there's such a vast body of artwork from which to draw this same entertainment anyways, so it wouldn't be missed much by anyone in particular. Not as much as a person, at least, and a person actually has the ability to want to live, unlike a piece of art. I don't see why anyone would choose the artwork.

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

The more I read that thread, the more I'm convinced that saving the person is the right choice. I had a knee-jerk moment of "OMG, what would we do without Shakespeare?", but logically and morally the person is the right one to save.

The "Shakespeare has influenced literary tradition" line of reasoning is especially unconvincing, because it still holds that literature is more valuable than people.

Cyborg Stan · Post by **Cyborg Stan** » 2006-07-22 09:09pm

They're a bunch of idiots. (Or, at least 50% of them.) A few things I'll note...

Idiots whining about how life without luxury isn't worth living. Apparently, it's okay to carpet nuke third world countries now. That, and if they want to turn Shakespheare into all luxury, I suppose it would only be fair to turn the random person into 'all humanity'.

I can really see only one person who even mentions the existence of other literature to compare in the thread. Irony!

It may be helpful to ask a slightly different question : Would you burn a person alive to become the next Shakespheare? Ask how this is any different from leaving a person inside the burning building just to save Shakespheare's works.

Ryushikaze · Post by **Ryushikaze** » 2006-07-22 09:16pm

I'd definitely save the person first, but if I thought I had enough time, I'd fling Shakespeare out the window. If it's large enough to pose a hindrace, it's sturdy enough to survive being flung out a window.

Kuroneko · Post by **Kuroneko** » 2006-07-22 09:21pm

When I encountered this thread, I immediately recalled a similar event in The Name of the Rose by Umberto Eco, except that Shakespeare is replaced by a (now genuinely lost) book of Aristotle. Speaking personally, that would make it somewhat more tempting, but `no' in either case. Now, if instead of Shakespeare, it was something with much more direct and beneficial potential impact on civilization, e.g., the last comprehensive book of chemistry in the world (say, this is a post-apocalyptic world), that would be a different matter.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2006-07-22 09:27pm

Perhaps to short-circuit clever attempts to save both, we should say each are locked in a separate windowless closet, you don't have the keys, the doors are too heavy to kick down, and you only have time to pick one lock. The point of the exercise is to decide which is more valuable to you, not find loopholes in the OP.

Anyway, much as I like Shakespeare, I'm not about to condemn a person to burn to death over a book.

Molyneux · Post by **Molyneux** » 2006-07-22 09:56pm

Query for those who would choose the person:

I would choose, if I were in the position of the person requiring saving, for the rescuer to save the book.

Is it ethical to, in this situation, assume that the person I could choose to rescue thinks the same way (assuming that I don't know the results of the poll in this thread)?

rhoenix · Post by **rhoenix** » 2006-07-22 10:09pm

Molyneux wrote:Is it ethical to, in this situation, assume that the person I could choose to rescue thinks the same way (assuming that I don't know the results of the poll in this thread)?

I would venture to say that one person's ethical code of conduct may differ from another's. Therefore, the assumption that the other person may or may not do the same for me isn't relevant - saving the other person would still be the ethical thing to do for me.

Junghalli · Post by **Junghalli** » 2006-07-22 10:22pm

Person, without a doubt.

Personally, since I don't believe in an afterlife, I view the destruction of human life as an incredibly grave matter. That's a person who will effectively cease to exist. Who will never experience another moment of consciousness. Who will never see the sunrise tomorrow, or his parents grow old, or his children grow up etc. I find that an incredibly scary thought, and it's an extremely serious matter to make that decision for another man.

In cases where other human lives may be saved or likely materially improved by his death it would be one thing. But a work of fiction, even an excellent one, simply is not worth depriving a person of life.

Molyneux · Post by **Molyneux** » 2006-07-22 10:27pm

rhoenix wrote:
Molyneux wrote:Is it ethical to, in this situation, assume that the person I could choose to rescue thinks the same way (assuming that I don't know the results of the poll in this thread)?
I would venture to say that one person's ethical code of conduct may differ from another's. Therefore, the assumption that the other person may or may not do the same for me isn't relevant - saving the other person would still be the ethical thing to do for me.

So for me, the ethical choice would be to save the book?

rhoenix · Post by **rhoenix** » 2006-07-22 10:32pm

Molyneux wrote:So for me, the ethical choice would be to save the book?

I was simply saying that an assumption cannot be made about another person's ethical code or behavior without prior knowledge. In your case, you might pick the book - or, you might not. Your reasons are your own, guided by one's ethics.

I know which I'd pick, but just because I would choose a certain way does not necessarily mean that everyone else will.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2006-07-22 10:39pm

Molyneux wrote:Query for those who would choose the person:

I would choose, if I were in the position of the person requiring saving, for the rescuer to save the book.

Is it ethical to, in this situation, assume that the person I could choose to rescue thinks the same way (assuming that I don't know the results of the poll in this thread)?

Absolutely not. You know full well that most people, even those who love Shakespeare (a minority to begin with) would chose to not burn to death. You can't justify saving the book by assuming your extremely unusual viewpoint is shared by a total stranger. You might as well just assume he's a serial killer, so the world is better off with him dead; the odds are about the same, I'd imagine, and you have just as much basis for making the assumption.

Sofia · Post by **Sofia** » 2006-07-22 10:57pm

Hey, four people who voted for Shakespeare! Show yourselves!

It would be interesting to hear your reasoning.

lgot · Post by **lgot** » 2006-07-22 11:39pm

Of course the work of Shakespeare is worth and have more impact, as art have, than one people life (as Shakespeare was one people life after all) but just because that, it need no salvation. After that is one copy of shakespeare, not his art. Just a bunch of papers.
If you know him enough to have to make the choice, then it means, his art and impact are already there, impossible to be destroyed. Bring the human, save life and have both.

Xess · Post by **Xess** » 2006-07-23 03:16am

I'd save the person, a few plays are hardly worth a person's life. And it's not like the core ideas of the plays would be lost forever anyway. How hard is it to think of "Boy meets girl, they fall in love, parents don't approve" or "Betrayed by trusted friend". The only moral action is to save the person.

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2006-07-23 09:07am

Save the person.

1) People have feelings and rights. A piece of literature, however important does not.
2) Shakespear is crap. This will mean no more forcing high school kids to read this stuff even though they don't understand most of what is going on.

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2006-07-23 09:26am

it was all stolen from the greeks anyways, put me down for the person...

Elfdart · Post by **Elfdart** » 2006-07-23 11:19am

With so many actors, teachers and scholars who can recite the works of Shakespeare without needing the text, why the fuck are these morons concerned about the book?

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2006-07-23 11:27am

Elfdart wrote:With so many actors, teachers and scholars who can recite the works of Shakespeare without needing the text, why the fuck are these morons concerned about the book?

Again, their shoehorning a situation so you can choose between a human life and an article, in their case an article they apperently adore. It's fairly disgusting.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2006-07-23 12:35pm

Elfdart wrote:With so many actors, teachers and scholars who can recite the works of Shakespeare without needing the text, why the fuck are these morons concerned about the book?

I had assumed for the purposes of this scenario that information was somehow magically wiped from everyone's brain. If it hasn't been, then this is a complete no-brainer: there are thousands of Shakespeare companies who could reconstruct the plays from memory. That's how many of the plays were originally published to begin with: printers would pay actors to write them down from memory. Shakespeare never published any of them; he was strictly a playwright and an actor.

The sonnets and epic poems would be harder to recover, but there really weren't that many and most if not all have probably been commited to memory somewhere. I think it's cheating to answer the OP "Well, I'll save the guy because we can reconstruct Shakespeare", since the intent of the question is "Do you value the works of Shakespeare more than the life of a stranger". But in a realistic scenario, the plays are in no danger even if every written copy is lost.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Shakespeare vs human

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