questions schmestions

i've come to realise that i am an exceedingly rational person, tempered with "righteous emotion". but what is rationality? what is "righteous emotion"? rationality is based upon logic, induction-proven causality, falsifiability, and solid premises not unlike morality. "righteous emotion" is as far as i would admit i am emotional, to the extent of righteous zeal, a fomenting rage against injustice, a profound compassion of the innocent sufferers. "righteous emotion" is also rightly predicated upon morality.

what then is morality? two threads exist: a) morality is the absolute laws of life as dictated by a supernatural authority, or b) morality are relative laws formulated through informal but extremely binding social contracts within any community.

if morality is absolute, it would make things much easier, since we don't even need to ask questions - the supernatural moral authority reigns supreme, and that authority being benevolent leaves no rational room for questioning. but the problem is that moral dilemmas are almost a daily affair! how can absolute morals reign over grey areas?

this problem does not exist if morality is relatively constructed within societies through the mechanism of social darwinism - the evolution of social action. morality exists in secular humanism insofar as morals have a function in achieving certain goals humanity has deigned of primal importance, for example, survival.

yet, in considering morals to be functional extensions of human goals, one must ask how do humans decide which goals to go for. it may seem like certain goals are simply rational (i.e. eliminating poverty), but philosophically, it is possibly tautological to consider morality predicated on rationality while rationality itself is predicated upon morality, unless rationality is amoral.

yet on the grounds that rationality is amoral, rationality loses its human connection and becomes as abstract as mathematics - a formulaic method of cogitation based within arbitrarily determined boundaries. this makes rationality more of a micro-managing tool suited for small problems rather than a macro-inclusive method suited for large problems such as moral dilemmas.

and so it may be that both types of morality exist - that of religious fundamentalism and secular humanism. some are laws from an as yet unseen authority, while others may be founded upon societal evolution - both higher authorities than the individual, upon which morals impress their influence. the etiology for these dichotomous morals are ever so subtly different, however. supernatural morality is intended (among other interpretations) to free the individual from worldly desires and cast spirituality (and the afterlife) as substantially more important reasons for life. natural morality is simply intended for the survival of the species while making life for the individual "better". note the highly subjective terms i am imposing here.

thus said, rationality may indeed corroborate both forms of morality: one being noumena-based to the extent that the afterlife and spirituality remain, as yet, unproven by scientific method, the other being phenomena-based to the extent that human survival is an observable occurence. some may consider noumena to be irrational, but descartes has also shown phenomena to be probably as frivolous. thus philosophically, both could be construed as rational premises, and thus applicable to rationality.

ergo, narrowness of emotion aside, i am one who accepts both in religious fundamentalism and secular humanism as authorities of morality, simply due to rationality. but what if these premises clash? that is when the appeal of "righteous emotion" steps in, as a "last resort" adjudicator.

but these... are aside from the times i revel in deconstruction. for in deconstruction, it is only rational (and right) to be absolutely neutral. nothing is to be spared deconstruction, not even morality.