> The categorical imperative roughly says that something is moral only if its universal adoption would benefit society.

Really? I actually don’t think that’s right at all. For example: nobody should be a philosopher, because if I everyone were, society would collapse. Surely, Kant did not believe that.

My understanding is that the categorical imperative is more like: it’s only moral if you would accept a random roll of the dice into any of society’s roles. In this case, I’m not sure society would be better off if passive income did not exist, but perhaps it should be “earned” passive income, in the entrepreneurial sense, rather than just pure rents for high status people.