We are looking for a principle that would strengthen Shana's position against Jorge's.
Let's breakdown the two positions:
Shana believes that owners of any work of art have the ethical right to destroy artwork - simply by virtue of their ownership - if they find said artwork morally or aesthetically distasteful, or if caring for said artwork becomes inconvenient.
Jorge believes that owners of unique artworks, unlike owners of other kinds of objects, have the moral right to possess, but not to destroy. The reason for this is that a unique work of art with aesthetic or historical value belongs to posterity and so it needs to be preserved, regardless of the desires of its legal owner.
Answer choice (E) states: "The autonomy of individuals to do what they wish with what is theirs must not be compromised in the absence of a threat to anyone's health or safety."
Clearly if an owner of artwork finds the art morally or aesthetically distasteful, or if caring for the art becomes inconvenient, there is no threat to anyone's health or safety. Therefore, if we abide by the principle in answer choice (E), then the autonomy of the owners of the art must not be compromised, i.e. they have the ethical right to destroy the artwork simply by virtue of their ownership.
Hope that clears things up! Please let us know if you have any other questions.
