If the Louvre Was on Fire, Should We Rescue the Art First or the People?

 by Daisy Watson-Rumbold

‘Liberty Leading the People’ - Eugene Delacroix

I've seen this question buzzing around a few philosophy blogs, and it's taken the online philosophy community by storm a little. A few people made their judgement after reading the question, often with a pinch of outrage that anyone would choose art over the glorious thing that is human life. Others, maybe for satirical effect, claimed the art held clear superiority. As much as I'd like to say my morality has some foundation to it, I couldn't figure out what I thought, and ever since, you could say I've been playing ethical ping pong with myself.

Firstly, I'd like to make it abundantly clear, this is a thought experiment. As with the trolley experiment, moral and philosophical judgements have to stretch boundaries and sometimes make people sound misguided or plain evil, but we'll stick with misguided. I also hope a decision like this never has to be made, I like the art, as do the visitors.

Human life has value. A blanket, universal statement I'd say every single person would agree with (give or take). Practically every religion and faith-system would stand by it, and a fair few philosophers based their life's work on the principle - so it's a good start.

There are two plausible points, in my opinion, that make this a convincing argument: (a) Humans have consciousness, and (b) our consciousness holistically relates to our bodies and our ability to act. Above all, our minds must have some form of intrinsic value to them. The memories they hold, the emotions they produce and the potential they fulfil are all wonderful things. There is no denying our brains are beautifully complex. Hell, they could be art themselves.

Without this consciousness, the universe is meaningless. By the logic of intrinsic value, we are valuable for the sake of our own experience and for the experience of every known living organism. Regardless of whether other species, planets or realities like humanity's existence, they rely on it because of the intrinsic value, we have gifted ourselves. We may stamp on our climate, disregard animals' rights, and send cars into space, even when we know it's wrong, but we still do it because we can. A world full of real people with independent minds is the most valuable, powerful and petrifying thing that could exist. This veers into an entirely different debate. Do robots have rights? Is AI the future of existence? Is it time we endorse Neuralink? These questions are being pondered worldwide, and for a good reason, but I'm going to avoid opening that can of worms.

More so, we grieve. We grieve for lovers, family and friends. We grieve for strangers and the vulnerable. Other people's tragedies are felt in our consciousness. Other's heartbreaks and lives rattle our emotional core. We are inclined to understand the gravity of human life, and therefore the gravity of its loss. The same reasoning stands when we take our own lives into consideration: the decision to become non-existent does not come easily. Camus and Mill are two philosophers who demonstrate that thoroughly.

If I followed these principles, art is invalid in my mind.

I agree with specific objections to the idea human life has intrinsic, meaningful value. Moral realism and the intuition surrounding human existence are two complex issues, with many paths to go down. I think our reasoning for wanting to believe we have intrinsic value comes not from genuine worth nor a sense of importance but from a place of angst. We confuse value with desperation to exist; there's a possibility those who stand firmly on the topic of human value are just petrified of non-existence. Sure, existing is gratifying for many people, but enjoyment doesn't equate to necessity.

Pushing aside personal views. I'll return to my first statement, human life has value. It had value prior to the art sitting in this hypothetical fiery Louvre. Humanity will continue to grow, and art will continue to be made. However, I'm not sure that's quite the answer.

It's feasible to assume most people in this situation would want to maintain their life, reasonably so. The dedicated art lovers and epicureans might accept the demise of their holistically conscious bodies for the sake of art, but most others would not.

Let me be a moral miscreant for a moment. Watch me bundle the Mona Lisa in one hand and the Grande Odalisque in the other and secure their safety whilst leaving the humans to their own devices.

First off, the extrinsic value of these paintings far outweighs the extrinsic value of the people. The wealth of the Louvre is estimated to be worth around £35 billion, so even if I collated every person's materialistic value in that building, it would never equate to the art. Some would say saving human life would be a bad investment, for the French economy, for the trustees and for the country's general well-being. Whilst this is probably perfectly reasonable logic for our capitalist warlords, I'm not entirely convinced.

The emotional, intellectual, historical and artistic milestones many of these artworks embody would be lost if they were to burn. The concepts they symbolise would return to being concepts, not substance.

Eugene Delacroix’s Liberty Leading the People depicts the bare-breasted Liberty leading revolutionaries over fallen bodies firmly holding the French Revolution's flag. The picture represents strength and freedom. It's said to have inspired Victor Hugo's Les Miserables and countless pieces of literature. The Zodiac of Dendera, a ceiling taken from a temple in Ancient Egypt, depicts constellations and astrological beliefs that have run through philosophy's heart for centuries. It made scientists and theists alike question the age of the earth and the measurements of time. The Rebellious Slave and the Dying Slave, created by Michelangelo, are personifications of the provinces under Julius II's control. Others think it symbolised the imprisonment of the arts following the pontiff's death. My point is that every single brushstroke, chiselled chip or engraving has led to the world we inhabit today. Our knowledge, history and culture roots from every piece of art ever made. Indeed, this is an incentive to question your choice. This art is beautiful, and it has its own intrinsic value by the sheer fact we go and admire it. We read into the stories that inspired the works and consider ourselves educated by them.

Hence, we should discard human value and save the art.

The problem is, I compared paint to people, children to chiselled marble and existence to aesthetics, and many people would dispute my every moral attribute for it.

So, let me put it under a new microscope. Every five years, we vote. A choice between what benefits you or the many. What do you choose? In a global crisis, with a bruised economy. Do you hoard your wealth or practice philanthropy?

Human life has all the value in the world, the world this art built. However, people will safeguard their choice to save humans when faced with this hypothetical situation. So why don't we share the same moral grounding when faced with corrupt governments. Or when we are presented with the choice of wealth over welfare. Our Louvre, the society we live in, is burning, and the majority of us add to the fuel; we choose external value over lives. We're all complicit, watching people go without food, without shelter, without education, and just keep living.

So, this question isn't about art at all; it's about discrepancies in our moral systems. Plato said, 'the extreme of injustice is to seem to be just when one is not.' and that's precisely what we are.