claycle

Local pizza place near me has a pear pizza that carries the name of the restaurant (so they must be proud of it?). It is:

• fresh mozzarella
• shaved pear
• caramelized onions
• hot honey (I think this means honey with a little red chili in it)
• pistachios

They offer/suggest adding prosciutto to the pizza (after baking), which we usually do.

It’s damn fine.

I enjoyed it just fine. I enjoy open-worldish-rpg-y games.

I think Odyssey refined the mechanics better, but Origins was still enjoyable. One the post-main DLCs I particularly liked (which is rare for me).

I did not/do not enjoy in the least the modern-day story detours nonsense; I just sort of think of them as commercial breaks that I go get some water during and pay no attention to.

People who didn’t like Ubisoft’s turn towards RPG/open-world elements seem to have a more negative opinion of the game, I think.

You are (deliberately?) skipping over the part of awareness.

Take for example a person who is aware that they cannot act morally when making seemingly normal, banal decisions. For example, they may be aware that when they choose to buy a shiny new cell phone when they have an older-but-still-perfectly-working model, they very likely doing something immoral. Because they are aware of the moral implications of their choice, they can choose hold-off buying a new phone for as long as possible (a morally-positive choice) and perhaps - going a step further - even using that money they would have spent on a new phone to help another person in need directly.

Most people probably don’t contemplate the moral implications of the purchase of a new phone, this is true and I accept your position this. But it is clearly not “literally every person” as you have said, since it only takes a single person with awareness to disprove your statement. I am certain at least one such person exists (even if anecdotally), so I rely on the word “most” rather than “literally every”.

You’ve committed reductio ad absurdum.

Yes, most people are probably acting immorally and they are not even aware of it.

That doesn’t mean it is a pointless exercise to identify the immoral behavior and strive to reduce or eliminate it, even if it is impossible to completely do so.

That’s quite the claim.

Yes, it is, and as explained in the video the original author (and also the person explaining it) admit it is quite a claim, then proceed to demonstrate the veracity of the claim. I suggest you grab a cup of jo, settle in, and watch it. It addresses the points you bring up directly.

[EDIT: Re: Quite a Claim: Yes, and thus fitting the OP’s “mind-blowing” criteria for the thread :-)]

The very short answer to “are you immoral for purchasing a cell phone” is “probably yes”.

The proposition is not an easy one (it accepts it is extreme), but it is hard to deny when you march down the logic.

I am focusing on the “blow my mind” part, rather than the “beautiful” part of your question, but I am certain many philosophically-minded people would consider the following “beautiful”.

Peter Singer’s argument in “Famine, Affluence, and Morality (1972)” that you and most everyone you know are probably immoral or evil and you don’t even realize it. It really affected my ideas of how to strive to live.

Here is a good video explaining the idea in detail, worth 30m of your time.

Peter Singer - ordinary people are evil