Quote Originally Posted by spockman View Post
I see some value to this statement in that logical systems are all based on some core value and some people get to this value based on emotional morals. But otherwise I disagree. A logical system should have arguments building upon this core value without any interference. Ideally, when deciding something, a person can remove their identity from the logical process entirely. This includes removing emotions which just get in the way.
How can arguments(ie. rationality) be built upon a core value without any interference from...the core value? Emotion is a clear factor in the building blocks of all core values. Even value itself is attributed with emotion as a factor.

What rational (essentially socially acceptable) decisions, are not based from sources which require emotional morals? I have not seen someone make a "rational" decision without emotional morals; if you have, please give an example. Examples for my point can be found simply by looking at an irrational decision.

Emotion cannot be removed from the equation. It is when there is a lack of balance between emotion and logic that irrational decisions are made (in societal eyes). It is not rational to disregard emotion entirely, because it is much of what "rational thinking" is built upon. It is also not rational to disregard logic entirely, obviously.

For a rational decision to be made it must conform with what is "rational", which is deemed by society. Society does not absolutely ignore emotions for the sake of logic, nor vice versa. If you are to say that what is rational is subjective ith each individual, I'd disagree with that only a [somewhat] objective comparison to the norm would be rational.