3 ms·
Take the complexities of society out of the picture for a moment and reduce the scenario to a family unit living on subsistence farming with nobody else around:
by tspike 8y ago
Take the complexities of society out of the picture for a moment and reduce the scenario to a family unit living on subsistence farming with nobody else around: if the family is somehow able to automate their food, water, shelter and energy needs, are they entitled to live forever on that work?
- falcor84 8y agoIt's a great question a but obviously the catch is in "nobody else around" - morality only really comes into play when humans interact with one another. In perhaps the simplest possible example, they live on land that belongs to a country that defends and otherwise manages it. In that case, paying a basic land tax should be enough. If there are other interactions between the family unit and its society, then other arrangements might need to come into play to allow them to maintain the entitlement for that lifestyle.
- cortesoft 8y agoRight, but that is not what is happening here. Other people are still working full time to provide the things he needs; food, energy, entertainment, etc. In return, he is giving the output of something he worked a few weeks on. In your example, it would be like the son invented a machine to do HIS chores for him, but then sat around while the rest of the family still did their work
- tspike 8y agoThat's a great example. At that point, it's up to the family and the son to negotiate what's acceptable. Ultimately, whatever arrangement they choose, the family unit benefits. I think where this analogy breaks down and becomes gray area in modern society is when the group unit that benefits gets too large to ascertain where the gains are accruing. We're biologically wired to optimally deal with groups of ~150 or fewer people.