3 ms·

>This is basically the antithesis of my own moral code to give more than I receive. This is mathematically impossible to apply universally. Can it be a moral c

• imtringued 5y ago
  >This is mathematically impossible to apply universally. Can it be a moral code if it can't be universal? It's obviously impossible but it is better than the inverse which is also impossible. The difference is that if you are below the potential that is actually possible you will approach the maximum potential of your society. You're failing, but you are failing upwards. "taking from everyone and giving very little in return is moral." is effectively trying to approach the minimum potential of your society i.e. zero.
• jamincan 5y ago
  The Golden Rule is a much weaker version of the OPs rule, and this guy fails it spectacularly as well.
• samatman 5y ago
  It well and truly is not. The Sun provides the Earth with enormous amounts of syntropy (this is the inverse of entropy), and we can capture this through productive labor before it inevitably dissipates off into space. As a toy example, it is certainly mathematically possible for everyone to grow more calories than they consume. We wouldn't want this, for the obvious reason that we don't need more calories than we consume, and this would be labor-intensive enough to leave many useful tasks unfilled. But it proves you wrong: there's nothing preventing "give more than you receive" from being a categorical imperative. Certainly nothing "mathematical".
  • totony 5y ago
    It's not about production though. Give/receive is interpersonal, one has to receive whatever you give, which makes that person have to give more than they got from you, to whom? It's a fruitful way to live but not something you must expect of others because it's an unattainable goal.