My position is rather more stark than I made it out to be. I cannot agree with you that the decision between right and wrong must necessarily not be made with the rational mind.<p>Don't forget, emotions are just rationality in a different guise, in an evolutionary context. Take the extreme examples of love and hate: love help ensures the survival of genetic material close to your own lineage, while hate binds you to act - possibly violently (i.e. "irrationally") - if wronged, even if that is harmful to your own material position, in a kind of logic of mutually assured destruction. And of course, MAD is one of the more supremely rational approaches to the nuclear question, and is the primary reason why there hasn't been a WW3.<p>The problem with abandoning reason with respect to morals is that you will no longer be swayed by rational argument. For example, if you take your morals from the dead scripture of an old religion, you're locking yourself into a rational system of laws designed (largely) for agricultural societies which often didn't have an independent strong rule of law. If your attachment to this dead writing is strong, it will lead to profoundly unjust positions and outcomes, such as supporting the suppression of females in society, or discrimination against people "not like you" (gay, other religions, etc.).