What's irrational about not considering that morals have anything to do with a fantasy being? The imaginary deity that you worship is not in any way objective, the Bible is perfect proof of that. Someone's whim's are obviously a bad reason to take morals into account.

And rationality is a certain way of thinking that implies certain things, therefore something rational will be absolute (situations like you described are only possible if either the people commit logical errors due to whatever circumstances). Morals aren't objective because more often then not they're not founded in rationality and logic, but rather on premises regarding superstition. Morals are determined by the cultural context in which they're born in (historical perion, geographical location), so you'll have have morals born in specific areas due to specific circumstances of those areas. While the moral rule may make sense in the cultural context in which it was born in, it would seem illogical to someone from another culture.

Morals are also conservative in nature, so you'll have situations where the premises that lead to the borth of a certain moral rule change (due to new information, technological advancements etc.), thus making the moral rule irrelevant and illogical within the new cultural context, yet the moral rule will persist due to the conservative population that will continue to inforce it, even if the moral rule will cause harm at this point. Christian morality is a good example of this.

Religions are false superstitions, therefore any moral based on a religion will start off from faulty premises, and will only incidentally be logical (sometimes this happens), but most often it will be illogical.

Also, we were talking about civil rights and American society, so I was talking about a particular context, not humanity in general when I made that comment to NinjaguyDan. The US, as well as all Western countries, are founded on certain principles that do not (and should not) permit the opression of minorities.

Ugh, that wasnt my point. i said , if you believe morals are an made than so is rationality, and thus it cant be good or bad. I wasnt talking about why morals are God given or man made or why beleiveng in either one of that is irrational. Do you think that Hitler thought that killing 6 million innocent people was irrational? To him, it is irrational that the Jews should have any kind of rights whatsoever. So was he an irrational person to him and to millions and millions of his followers ? No, because he thought that was perfectly rational. If morals can come out the way you described it (trough religion, historcal person etc etc...) than so can ''rational'' thoughts. Every person has diffrent definition of ''rational'' on diffrent subject. There is a certian way of thinking in rationality but it sure as hell not the same to every person in the world so it can not possibly be absolute. And dont say ''just because one think hes rational, doesnt make him so'' because the same thing can be said about morals too. There are no errors in rational thinking, just like there are no errors in morals (that is what you believe in, so I am going by your logic on morals, thats sure as hell not something I believe in). As for the part ''While the moral rule may make sense in the cultural context in which it was born in, it would seem illogical to someone from another culture'' <---- The same thing can be said about rational thoughts. Do you think Mein kampf is considered a rational book in Israel?

 As for religion being a false superstition, you have absolutely zero evidance to make that statent, so I will just ignore it.

Im sorry, but you can not possibly explain rationality without objective morality. i've watched debate videos on this, and it is a confirmed fact.

@pizzahut451:

Ugh, that wasnt my point. i said , if you believe morals are an made than so is rationality, and thus it cant be good or bad.

Rationality is good because it implies the best possible solution.

Do you think that Hitler thought that killing 6 million innocent people was irrational? To him, it is irrational that the Jews should have any kind of rights whatsoever. So was he an irrational person to him and to millions and millions of his followers ? No, because he thought that was perfectly rational.

What he thought is irrelevant. He wasn't rational, because his resoning started off of irrational premises, thus making all of his views irrational. Morals are subjective because they are not founded on rationality. If morals would be founded on rationality though, then they'd be objective, however lots of subjective elemets contribute to the formation of morals (context etc.).

If morals can come out the way you described it (trough religion, historcal person etc etc...) than so can ''rational'' thoughts.

You don't really undestand what rationality is, no? It's a certain type of thinking. What you're saying is that 2 2 can equal 4 in one situation, and 5 in another, because people want it to be that way, or they "think" it can be that way. Rational thinking is a method of analysing information, not a set of beliefs. There are strict rules to thinking rationally, they're not governed by impressions.

Every person has diffrent definition of ''rational'' on diffrent subject. There is a certian way of thinking in rationality but it sure as hell not the same to every person in the world so it can not possibly be absolute.

There's only one definition of rational, but thinking rational reffers to a process, to a way of thinking. The reason why people may appear to think rationally, yet reach different results is that one (or both) commited logical errors (a very common one is starting off of false premises, something which religious people are guilty of, as well as people who are paranoic).

And dont say ''just because one think hes rational, doesnt make him so'' because the same thing can be said about morals too.

But ationality is objective, wheras morals aren't.

There are no errors in rational thinking

You've obviously never heard of sophisms. I should seriosuy end this conversation now, and reccomend you just read some philosophy books.

just like there are no errors in morals 

The main error a moral can have is not being founded in logic.

As for the part ''While the moral rule may make sense in the cultural context in which it was born in, it would seem illogical to someone from another culture'' <---- The same thing can be said about rational thoughts. Do you think Mein kampf is considered a rational book in Israel?

As I said, Hitler was not rational. He broke several rules of logic when he elaborated his ideeas. Of course you wouldn't know anything about logic, would you? Just look at your whole post. You don't see the difference between rationality and morals.

 As for religion being a false superstition, you have absolutely zero evidance to make that statent, so I will just ignore it.

I don't see the need to disprove unfounded assumptions.

Im sorry, but you can not possibly explain rationality without objective morality. i've watched debate videos on this, and it is a confirmed fact.

Rationality is a method. Morality is a result, that can be reached through rational thinking, or through irrational thinking. You don't know what you're talking about. Oh well... (sigh)

@pizzahut451:

Yes, Jews are over populating germany and are getting richer and richer. In order to save german ayran race, we need to get rid of jews- this was considerd rational by over 50 million people back than., because they thought what they did was right.

This is what's called "false premise". There's nothing rational about it, and that's because that information is simply not true. Of course you don't understand rational arguments so...

To him, and his millions of followers he was a genius leader and saviour, wayyy far from irrational person. Who are you to say that his premises were irrational? There were at least 80 million people that disagreed with you. And now big majority of them agrees with you. Just like you said can happen with morals, rationality can also be chnaged or proven unrational trough history, acts and persons.in my opinnion, i beleive both rationality and morals are objective and absolute sowhat Hitler did was both irrational and un  moral. But, if we wanna go by your beleifs, if morals are subjective, than so is rationality. Every person has diffrent view of rationality and logical thinking.

Rationality doesn't change. Something isn't rational because most people say it is. Something is rational if it fulfills all the necessary conditions. You should read some philosphy or rhetoric books. Hitler didn't appeal to people's reason, he appealed to their emotions and their prejudices. He had no rational arguments.

Rationality is a certain type of CORRECT thinking, in other words, what a person thinks its the best view/way/solution on the matter. There are diffrent types of rationality as the German sociologist Max Weber suggested. Value/ beleif oriented rationality is one of them...Your comprassion with mathematics is useless, because maths are absolute, because of mathematical laws like II II = IIII. it cant be considerd diffrently, because thats just the way it is. There is only one answer to a problem that is 2 plus 2 and that is four. Those are mathematical laws, not a theory. A problem of Jews Germans had with them inWW2 could have been solved in numorous diffent ways ways, using diffrent logic on thinking but the people that that the genocide was a correct and thus rational.

I think you ashould actually read Weber's theories. You obviously have misunderstood him completely (not to mention that he's in no way the supreme instance when it comes to rationality).

So what makes one thought rational? What kind of law besides the moral law (which you reject, and there is a contradiction) can decide what is rational and what not?

Read books about rationality. Actually read them, and you'll find out.

Oh, but they are, just like rationality. 

Give me a rational, absolute, reason why staying a virgin 'till marriage is a good thing.

That only applies if you think morlas are man made, not God given, which isnt what our discussion is about.

Morals are man made. Everything regarding human culture and society is man made, including religion and the deity you worship.

He didnt broke his rules of logic. You cant force law into stuff like rationality and logic and put it aside when it comes to morals.Morality refers directly to what is right and wrong, regardless of what specific individuals think. It could be defined as the conduct of the ideal "moral" person in a certain situation.

Rules of logic aren't individual. He was a delusional paranoic person. His premises were all false, and his beleifs were irrational. The morals that you talk about are those who have a basis in rationality, but most morals don't.

Fine, but you also cant call it false because its both insulting and not proven and as such, not credible.

False 'till proven otherwise. Give me a reason to think that it may be true.

Social Darwnism isn't really illogical.

It's just evil.

I mean, it would be logical to sterlize everyone with aids.

If we did that aids would be errdicated.

It would be logical to sterilize everyone who could pass on genetic disorders.  By doing so we would of eliminated genetic disorders.

There is a lot that is logical that is "evil".

Ruling soley by logic is dangerous.

People should still be allowed to marry whoever they damn well please though.

What does that have to do with the holocaust? The reasons why Jews were hated were illogical.

Not much.  I was reffering to

"Rationality is good because it implies the best possible solution."

But of the premise is wrong, then the whole argument is irrational. Exterminating Jews is irrational, because doing that solves nothing.

Yet i gave above reasons of social darwinism that do make sense.