What if our most “rational,” science-minded moral frameworks are quietly justifying violence, domination, and erasure? In this video essay, I trace David Hume’s is–ought problem and follow a secular, compassionate, scientific worldview to its unsettling conclusions — from free will skepticism and utilitarian ethics to the “quarantine model” of justice, effective altruism, and systems that treat human suffering like a technical problem to be optimized. Along the way, we confront hurricanes, checkpoints, drowning children, colonialism, capitalism, Zionism, Palestine, and the limits of treating human beings like weather systems.This isn’t a rejection of reason or science — it’s a critique of how scientism, ascended in many popular thinkers like Sam Harris, Peter Singer, and even Sam Bankman-Fried, can be captured by power. We examine how good intentions, clean logic, and abstract models can end up endorsing moral nightmares. The question isn’t whether these arguments are smart — it’s what gets lost when suffering becomes a math problem, tragedy becomes an acceptable cost, and rational people stop asking who pays the price.00:00 Intro to Scientism01:27 Part 1: Imminent Danger02:34 Part 2: Consciousness & Moral Concern08:47 Part 3: Taking Action12:12 Part 4: The Problems12:33 Problem 1: Causality15:14 Problem 2: Distal & Systemic18:45 Problem 3: Entrenching Power23:34 Problem 4: Genuine Flourishing28:13 Part 5: ConclusionsALL MUSIC BY https://michigan25yearsago.bandcamp.com/BECOME A MEMBER - MONTHLY MEMBERS ONLY LIVESTREAM https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC5NIku35U9thGG9WBJjE0sw/joinFor more from Jay visit whatjaythinks.com
