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.
At least twice a day, usually three times a day, but I have "reasons".
After not taking really good care of my teeth for too many years, I needed surgery. I recovered completely and kept my teeth, but was clearly given the message that if I want to keep my teeth I need to be diligent about their care. I've lived long enough to understand the value of having a working, pain-free set of a choppers. So, I complied.
Once I had recovered from the surgery and infection, it became clear I needed braces, so my dentist suggested Invisaligns. These have the "benefit" of making you brush your teeth every time you take them off (to eat, to drink anything staining) and put them back on. I have to wear my braces 22 hours a day to comply with the treatment.
My normal routine is to get up in the morning, take my braces off, have as much espresso as I want and maybe some yogurt, then brush my teeth with a stain-removing paste (Arm and Hammer Peroxicare) and put my braces back in. Then at lunch I pop out the braces, eat, brush my teeth (Peroxicare), then pop my braces back in until dinner. Dinner, rinse repeat, but then I use a Crest Gum Detoxify before popping the braces back in before bed as part of my ongoing post-surgical routine.
I also use a water flosser at least once a day.
My teeth and gums are really healthy now and I intend to keep them that way.
Blue Velvet? Probably up there...
I love the Kriegas. I might get a Mosko 80L Reckless for "heavy off-road camping trips", but the Kriegas ability to combo bags to allow me to tailor my kit to my trip (style, duration) is great and I highly recommend them. In this kit, I was carrying 30L + 2x20L + the water/fuel bottle carrier.
As a general and positive statement, I'd say Forbidden Lands is one of the best fantasy games I've played, and I would pick it to play before playing Pathfinder or any mode of DnD.
It is not perfect, and it may not be for everyone, however.
We have played FL for a about a year, and what I find that I value most is how "efficiently" it plays. By this I mean that I feel like it is one of the rare systems that we seem to get a lot done with our few hours of game time rather than spending a lot of time flipping rule books. The mechanics are clear and task resolution via dice is fast. Combat is equally fast (usually) and endemically dangerous enough that players will quickly learn that perhaps combat is not always the best solution to a problem.
One of the very subtle things we value about FL is how it very purposely injects chaos into your game from unexpected quarters. This is hard to explain, but the advice in the rulebook to "prepare less, and let the rolls guide you" (paraphrased) is kind of true. I think it's a great system to run a good sandbox game with (and, clearly, this is a design goal of the game and it provides you with the nerd knobs to do it fairly easily).
The provided world is detailed just enough to get you started, but intentionally mostly up to you. The wealth of published material, both official and by the community, is strong for a comparatively "small game". If you only picked up the base box and Raven's Purge (which you should), you have a complete game and massive campaign to run from the get-go.
This is not to say the game is universally adored even at my own table. One player is a little hide-bound by their experience (mostly with D&D games) and personality that causes some friction/cognitive dissonance with the rules. In particular, this person has trouble with the Push to gain Willpower mechanic (a mechanic I, as the GM, actually adore because it causes players to willingly inject that oh-so-tasty chaos into the game by their own choices).
I encourage you to play it long enough to direct your players through the first two (of three) sites in the GM Guide. Start them somewhere and nudge them towards The Hollows (causing them to explore the map a little). From there, move them towards Weatherstone with the idea of having them realize they can make it their stronghold. At this point, you've set them up to play in the Raven's Purge sandbox and you've got months of play ahead of you.
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".