Shakespeare vs human

[K. A. Pital]

Gah; the person of course.
Culture always spawns new works; a person doesn't rise from the grave.

[Dread Not]

I would grab the person in a heartbeat. I don't really care what work of fiction would be burning up. Entertainment, no matter how marvelous, is still entertainment.

I wonder how many people voting for Shakespeare in the other forum actually thought their response through. You would have to be one hell of an asshole to leave a person screaming in agony and begging for help while you run off to grab a fucking book.

[The Aliens]

The person gets saved- they aren't replaceable, and Shakespeare is.

Shakespeare's works aren't ever going to die out completely. Firstly, what we know as "Shakespeare's works" were cobbled together after the fact by the actors who participated in the shows, recalling lines. It would be triflingly easy, if inconvenient, to perfectly put together Shakespeare's works again- at the Stratford Festival in Ontario there are already four plays by Shakespeare being performed, so we would have those, and I'd be greatly surprised if at least one production of every Shakespeare play wasn't running somewhere on Earth. Even without the exact lines, most of the stories survive in some form or another- even modern dreck movies like "She's the Man" get along the point of the stories.

Even assuming I've missed the point, and no-one remembers any of his work, the person gets saved. If we get to the point where no-one is performing or reading copies of Shakespeare's work (since there's only one copy in existence), it's not culturally relevent. If the works lose their cultural relevence and aren't performed or remembered, then what part of culture is being helped by saving them?

Save the person.

[Spoonist]

the last copy of the works of Shakspeare in existance, which would you save

If the culture which I live in has let all the other works of shakespear and all of its spin-offs be destroyed and forgotten then the impact of the last one gone as well will be 0. Such a culture would be so different from ours that anything shakespear could add would be meaningless, otherwise that wouldn't be the last copy.

[Stark]

The retarded part is that the works of Shakespeare could be reproduced from other sources anyway. The stories are already incorporated into other media and literature, so they can't be lost simply because the last printed book is destroyed. Further, they could be rewritten from memory. Even *worse*, they're actually pretty uninspired archetypical stories, and having them gone would open up plenty of new creativity that wouldn't be instantly branded 'Shakespeare ripoff', so we'd get new, potentially better replacements. I'm at least twice as crazy about books as the next guy, but this is just ridiculous.

When the worst case is 'we lose one particular configuration of literature, but new literature is always being written', it hardly stacks up to a human life. They could have at least made it interesting, and specified that the copy of Shakespeare is all that remains of, say, European culture, or Western culture, or the only surviving text from the Elizabethan age or whatever.

[Pendragon]

I found this to be an interesting conundrum, but the choices seemed too limited. So I decided to do an empirical experiment.
For this I used:

Myself.
One copy of shakespeares collected works (softback).
One younger brother, aged twelve and of average size.
My imagination.
His imagination.
A house.

Altough tempting, I decided that setting the house on fire for real was somewhat impractical and wouldn't contribute enough to the experiment to be worth the bother. Thus I imagined the house being on fire and instructed my brother to do the same. He did.
Since we both are blessed with vivid imaginations, this was somewhat scary.
Then I instructed my brother to pretend he was unconcious and go limp. He did. Then I grabbed the book, aswell as him and successfully dragged him into the garden without either of us imagining themselves getting burned crispy.

Ergo, I would refuse to choose either and save both, as I have proven to my own satisfaction that I'm capable of doing both. After all, the book isn't that big.

/Joel - I feel downright scientific

[fgalkin]

I found this to be an interesting conundrum, but the choices seemed too limited. So I decided to do an empirical experiment.
For this I used:

Myself.
One copy of shakespeares collected works (softback).
One younger brother, aged twelve and of average size.
My imagination.
His imagination.
A house.

Altough tempting, I decided that setting the house on fire for real was somewhat impractical and wouldn't contribute enough to the experiment to be worth the bother. Thus I imagined the house being on fire and instructed my brother to do the same. He did.
Since we both are blessed with vivid imaginations, this was somewhat scary.
Then I instructed my brother to pretend he was unconcious and go limp. He did. Then I grabbed the book, aswell as him and successfully dragged him into the garden without either of us imagining themselves getting burned crispy.

Ergo, I would refuse to choose either and save both, as I have proven to my own satisfaction that I'm capable of doing both. After all, the book isn't that big.

/Joel - I feel downright scientific

This, of course, assumes, that that the book and the human are in the same place. What if they're in different rooms/on different floors, or better yet, in different buildings? Also, what if its a bigger book? Like, the 500-year old original of some until-then lost work.

As for myself, I'd save the guy. I never liked Sheakespeare anyway.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Pendragon]

I found this to be an interesting conundrum, but the choices seemed too limited. So I decided to do an empirical experiment.
For this I used:

Myself.
One copy of shakespeares collected works (softback).
One younger brother, aged twelve and of average size.
My imagination.
His imagination.
A house.

Altough tempting, I decided that setting the house on fire for real was somewhat impractical and wouldn't contribute enough to the experiment to be worth the bother. Thus I imagined the house being on fire and instructed my brother to do the same. He did.
Since we both are blessed with vivid imaginations, this was somewhat scary.
Then I instructed my brother to pretend he was unconcious and go limp. He did. Then I grabbed the book, aswell as him and successfully dragged him into the garden without either of us imagining themselves getting burned crispy.

Ergo, I would refuse to choose either and save both, as I have proven to my own satisfaction that I'm capable of doing both. After all, the book isn't that big.

/Joel - I feel downright scientific

This, of course, assumes, that that the book and the human are in the same place. What if they're in different rooms/on different floors, or better yet, in different buildings? Also, what if its a bigger book? Like, the 500-year old original of some until-then lost work.

As for myself, I'd save the guy. I never liked Sheakespeare anyway.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

I'd still go for both. If we never tried what others deemed impossible, humanity never would've gotten anywhere.

Having a very nice day.
-Joel

[fgalkin]

Why do people insist on breaking hypothetical scenarios. It's not what it's about, people *sigh*

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Stravo]

C'mon people this is not a problem solving exercise. I'll put it simpler for those that can't or won't follow a simple hypothethical.

Are the works of WIlliam Shakespeare worth more than a single human life? End of story. None of this bullshit - "I'll have the guy hold the books on the way down" Jesus Christ. Way to miss the point of the whole damned exercise.

I'll go even further and ask is ANY work of art worth more than a human life?

I've discovered in my life that artists have a very self inflated view of what they do and the product of their work. It always throws them into fits when their artwork has to be appraised in real world values and none of their own self involved criteria for greatness. For me it is a very simple fact that all of their artistic inspiration and effort isn't worth jack shit compared to a human life - the greatest piece of artwork in the natural world IMO.

[Darth Wong]

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

Hell yes! I'm so fucking tired of Shakespeare wankers who pretend that he actually invented entire genres of drama. I remember one idiot who said that Shakespeare invented the Greek Tragedy. Why the fuck do you think it's called the Greek Tragedy? Argh ...

I vote to grab the Shakespeare book, throw it into the fucking fire to make sure it's destroyed, and then save the person.

[Pendragon]

Why do people insist on breaking hypothetical scenarios. It's not what it's about, people *sigh*

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

Because most hypothetical scenarios, including this one, are absurdly pointless and encourages thinking in black and white. And a poll about is just fucking stupid since the answers mean next to nothing by themselves, only the discussion provoked by the question. Furthermore, the question in itself is badly worded since the collected works of shakespeare is too specific. Someone who likes them is far more inclined to think about the choice than someone who doesnt. If you think Shakespeare blows, of course you'd choose to save the person.
These kinds of questions are pretty much the worst of dumbed down philosophy, and my replies was me rebelling at it.

What if we replace Shakespeare with something along the lines of the last written source of human history? Or the person with a pet bunny rabbit? What if the person is in the last stages terminal cancer with days left to live?
Just thinking about the one question is meaningless, you have to make comparisons. And most important of all, both choices would have to have their own merits for the question to be worthwhile.

But those are just my own, poorly worded, opinions.

/Joel

[Rye]

I'll go even further and ask is ANY work of art worth more than a human life?

Depends on the human and the artwork. If it was Da Vinci's collected works vs some child murdering rapist, I would imagine a lot of people would let him burn out of hate for him and save the artwork if it's not going to endanger themselves unless they obsess over it.

I think the more telling question would be how many people would save some obviously flawed asshole vs artwork they really like. How many people would save the life of some arsehole crack or heroin junkie that probably does god knows what to support his habit, and, what's more, probably got himself into that situation in the first place, at the expense of some awesome irreplaceable artwork?

I'd like to think I would go for the artwork but I think I'd be emotionally compelled to save the junkie. I don't know if the majority of people would be like me in that case, though.

I suspect the only situation I'd be able to ignore a junkie equivalent in favour of something else would be either pets or rare animals, something certainly alive, anyway.

[Stofsk]

This is a retarded ethical 'dilemma'.

If this is the last copy of William Shakespeare's work in the entire world (something I find very hard to believe), then saving it won't matter a goddamn thing, because the civilisation you're presumably a part of can't value it enough to have more than one goddamn copy. Honest to god, how hard is it to have more than one copy of Shakespeare's work, in a variety of different formats? (book, electronically, film etc) This is the first thing I found to be wrong with this scenario, it just isn't realistic. If you conform to the scenario's broken premise, then you have to wonder why this is the last work of Shakespeare's in existence - and the most obvious reason is that Shakespeare is already forgotten and unvalued by history at this point in time. Therefore, saving it accomplishes nothing - the society in this scenario simply doesn't care.

Furthermore, if you actually value Shakespeare as a work of art (and I do) then that means you've read it and seen it performed, and so you've already been enriched by the experience; why bother saving the book? It lives on in your head. Any effect his work would have had on you has had it's effect on you already. And if you hated his work then the choice is even simpler (as per Darth Wong's example).

Therefore, only the most sociopathic of persons would vote for the book over the random person; in other words, this is no dilemma at all, it's a false dilemma.

Replace the 'collected works of Shakespeare' with Shakespeare, the man himself. Then it becomes a real ethical dilemma, one in which you have to make a hard choice between two human lives, one an unknown quantity and the other a known one.

[Mark S]

I clicked on this thread wanting to see what the real issue would be, thinking that it couldn't possibly actually be Shakespeare vs a Human. But it is! And people are actually voting to save a damn book! My first thought was that this dilema was increadibly stupid. I'm not an emotionally isolated and stunted psychopath with no connection to other human life, nor am I retarded and not able to understand the gravity of a life at stake, of course I'd save the person. Even if you couldn't retreive the works from other sources and yet everyone still considered Shakespeare a great literary value, it's not human life. It's already seen its potential, the person hasn't.

[Battlehymn Republic]

I think people are getting too fixated upon Shakespeare.

What if it was Star Wars?

I don't think it would change anyone's votes, but I'd like to see how the replies would go.

[Darth Garden Gnome]

I think people are getting too fixated upon Shakespeare.

What if it was Star Wars?

I don't think it would change anyone's votes, but I'd like to see how the replies would go.

Sorry, George.

In that alternative universe, this site would become a not-so-weird parallel, with Star Wars being replaced by Franchise X. Someone should make a ytmnd about it.

[wolveraptor]

Star Wars can burn in hell. Now if it were Lord of the Rings, I'd vote to chuck the person into the fire to make sure he's destroyed, and then save the book/film. Disclaimer for morons: I'm kidding.

[Vicious]

Replace the 'collected works of Shakespeare' with Shakespeare, the man himself. Then it becomes a real ethical dilemma, one in which you have to make a hard choice between two human lives, one an unknown quantity and the other a known one.

I assume this is a Shakespeare who hasn't yet written the works he's known for, but if saved will do so vs. an unknown individual. Now the question becomes: a person you know will go on to write some great stories, or some unknown person who could be a junkie, a criminal, a mathematical prodigy or an artistic virtuoso himself. How can you decide? You might as well ask me to pick between two unknowns because if we consider Shakespeare's works to be worth more than any other person's potential, how can we say we value life over material works?

In short it comes down to who has the greatest chance of living. If it's equal, then the choice becomes arbitrary and morality leaves the equation in favor of who is the easiest to save. If the unknown guy is unmovable but Shakespeare is, then Shakespeare wins because saving one person is better than saving none. If they are both equal in all aspects of rescuability, then again it is a completely arbitrary choice and it comes down to how much you value a known vs. an unknown quantity.

[NecronLord]

I assume this is a Shakespeare who hasn't yet written the works he's known for, but if saved will do so vs. an unknown individual. Now the question becomes: a person you know will go on to write some great stories, or some unknown person who could be a junkie, a criminal, a mathematical prodigy or an artistic virtuoso himself. How can you decide?

Personally, I'd go with Shakespere, because, damnit, I like Shakespere, I don't know the other guy.

[lgot]

Well, you do not know Shakespeare yet, since he did not wrote a thing. So, you would go blind. Now, Imagine Galactus appear and say : Marlowe will die tonight, but I can save him and replace with this dude that wrote a few plays, named William, would you do it ?

[Stofsk]

Well, you do not know Shakespeare yet, since he did not wrote a thing.

He's also dead, which makes the scenario slightly unrealistic.

The whole point is what Vicious said: known versus unknown quantity. You know who Shakespeare is and what value he has, whereas you don't know who's behind door number two. (but you know there is someone behind there)

It could be a criminal, a cute woman, an ugly woman, a Nobel Prize winner or a creationist. The point is you don't know. But you do know Shakespeare is behind door number one.

It's quite a simple and effective ethical dilemma in my opinion. Like Necronlord I choose Shakespeare.

[wolveraptor]

I would choose Shakespeare, not because he's a great playwrite, but because there's a 100% chance that he won't go on to become a drug-addict, criminal, or any other worthless trash. The other person has a small, but existant, chance of being someone not worth saving.

Really, what have Shakespeare's works done that are so great as to be irreplaceable? It's the fact that he will go on to be an upstanding member of society that I find valuable.

[Mad]

I think people are getting too fixated upon Shakespeare.

What if it was Star Wars?

I don't think it would change anyone's votes, but I'd like to see how the replies would go.

William Shakespeare (ripped through time, before he created any of his works) vs the last surviving copy of the original (pre-SE) classic Star Wars trilogy.

You can only save one. Does Romeo meet Juliet, or does Han shoot first?

Fight!

[Lord Zentei]

I think people are getting too fixated upon Shakespeare.

What if it was Star Wars?

I don't think it would change anyone's votes, but I'd like to see how the replies would go.

William Shakespeare (ripped through time, before he created any of his works) vs the last surviving copy of the original (pre-SE) classic Star Wars trilogy.

You can only save one. Does Romeo meet Juliet, or does Han shoot first?

Fight!

Star Wars can always be changed back if the newer versions exist given a sufficiently competent graphics team.

The Bard it is.