Shanna: Owners of any work of art, simply by virtue of ownership, ethically have the right to destroy that artwork if they find it morally or aesthetically distasteful, or if caring for it becomes inconvenient. Jorge: Ownership of unique artworks, unlike ownership of other kinds of objects, carries the moral right to possess but not to destroy. A unique work of art with aesthetic or historical value belongs to posterity and so must be preserved, whatever the personal wishes of its legal owner. Which one of the following principles, if accepted, would contribute most to Shanna's defense of her position against that of Jorge? ['There are certain entities over which no one would be ethically justified in claiming absolute rights to ownership.', "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.", 'Truly great works of art are never morally or aesthetically distasteful to any serious student of the history of art.', 'It would be imprudent to allow the present stock of artworks to be destroyed without some guarantee that the artists of the future will produce works as great as those produced in the past.']