The world would have been fine. We've probably lost uncountable number of beautiful works to destruction and geniuses to crib death that would have otherwise completely changed the (cultural) state of the world, but we don't miss them because we never knew about them. The path history took is as valid as all other paths it could have taken.

Sure the world is fine. But that's a really low bar of argument. If someone was going to go back in time and destroy great works, would you not strongly prefer them be stopped? (All else equal and no secondary consequences from time travel or whatever.) Do they have literally no utility to the world in your mind?

No, because that's a paradoxical requirement. I can't care for things which I never knew (could have) existed, and interfering with reality so that they would exist would require me to care enough for them to exist so as to interfere in the first place.

Every action we make chooses one from (infinite) branches of reality. Favoring one over the other is meaningless. The result of things existing will always be other things not existing. The atoms that I'm using to exist could have been used to compose other entities instead. You're assuming a sort of situation where everything that could exist would exist. A Borgesian library where not only every possible work of Kafka is written, but in every possible variation. The act of writing by itself destroys every alternative work. Are we certain that the Kafka we have is the best Kafka we could have?

One morning, when Gregor Samsa woke from troubled dreams, he found himself transformed in his bed into a horrible vermin.

One morning, when Georg Samsa woke from troubled dreams, he found himself transformed in his bed into a disgusting bug.

One day, when Georg Valta woke from troubled dreams, he found himself awake in his bed transformed into a horrible vermin.

In the morning, when Georg Sanka woke from dreadful dreams, he found himself awake in bed in the body of a nightmarish vermin.

...

You can assign value to different world states. All of life is about trying to steer reality into branches we prefer! Every decision you will ever make is to increase the probability of world states you desire more. If you really didn't have any preferences, you wouldn't do anything at all.

And yes, I absolutely would prefer to live in the world state with optimal Kafka. You really wouldn't? If Kafka came up to and asked him to help you with his wording or something, you wouldn't assist him at all?

Yes, you can assign values to different world versions, but each version would have their own values. It's a meaningless (to others), subjective categorization. There is no solution to the trolley problem where both branches agree to let one branch die.

I didn't mean that I do not have any preferences, but that my preferences aren't special or better than others' preferences, in the same way that another version of the world (where Pratchett's wishes were overruled) is not a better world than the current one. I think I'm skirting close to Leibniz here. Yes, the world could be better, but it would not be our world, and it would only be better to some of us, and worse for others.

It's highly unlikely that your best Kafka is my best Kafka. As such there is no Best Kafka. The world in which I help Kafka finish The Castle is one in which (for want of a nail) a trillion years from now the Zormulons exterminate the Qdhraxians. I doubt the Qdhraxians are happy I at least got an ending to a story.

And who knows how many masterpieces have never been discovered, perhaps because their authors burnt them before anyone saw them? In some other timeline people are eternally grateful that XYZ's 1867 manuscript was found (just before s/he struck the match) and published and saved the world and founded a new religion of universal peace and happiness. Well, too bad we don't live in that timeline.

It's hard to miss what you never knew.

The world could be a lot more fine though - we as a global society are largely still with in the age of superstition.

Would have been great to possibly break out of that before our lifetimes, and I'd guess writing could have played a big part in that.

okay, so the path where his works were destroyed is as valid as the one where they weren't.

Terry Pratchett had over 70 books published in his lifetime, and so his legacy is in his published works, while Kafka's masterpieces were largely unpublished at the time of his death and he was not widely known, so they are not really analogous situations.

Rich powerful people have more rights?

Or are you arguing these was more potential of some destruction of a legacy?

Given Kafka's work (and the sadistic pleasure teachers have in tormenting high school students with it), I'm quite angry that it wasn't followed through.

Interesting that we consider products of billions of years of biological evolution in a cosmos that shows no evidence of life anywhere else in its vast coldness as perfectly alright to be destroyed willy-nilly in the pursuit of short-sighted expansion and greed, but we are nevertheless full of hubris that OUR OWN excretions of imagination and little buildings and artefacts of our infant civilisation, right down to every single bit, needs to be preserved at all costs!

Please, show me the person who wants the world to be destroyed but not these specific books.