Rational thinking = Ethics & Morality

I'd like to debunk the concept that being rational and logical can lead to immorality and unethical behavior.

Consider that every moral we have is a freedom we give up for a greater good. No matter what moral you look at, there is always a rational benefit behind it. I challenge anyone to think of a moral that is actually irrational.

Before you post an example, consider this: is the moral counter-intuitive, or irrational? It's a subtle difference, but needs to be pointed out: there are morals that are counter-intuitive, but none that are irrational.

For example, it's counter-intuitive to tell the truth in a situation where you will be punished. However, if you consider the benefits of a society and people that never lie, it's more logical to give up the freedom to lie so that everyone can share the benefit of an honest society.

A society that abandons certain immoral freedoms will be better as a whole because it gives citizens freedom from selfish acts of community sabotage. Thus, the community becomes more important than the individual. The greater the threat an act is to a community, the more immoral the act becomes.

By evaluating immoral acts based on community threat, you can easily find out which virtues are more important than others. For example, freedom of speech is preferred over honesty, so we give people the choice to lie if they want. Lying only becomes illegal when it causes damage to the community, such as in libel or fraud.

This is the logic behind our morals. Everything I've laid out is a rational approach to how our society should be run, and it also happens to be ethical and moral. Once again, It's ALWAYS rational to be moral. It's just sometimes counter-intuitive.

What's community ?

My neighborhood, my state, my country, my world ? ?

Yes

The community must decide what is moral. Otherwise, who else would make the decision? However, that doesn't mean the community will always make the moral choice. This distinction is important to note.

Let's use your example to demonstrate. While the community may decide that homosexuals pose a risk, they don't. In any non-hypothetical community, no matter how many people are gay, there would always be enough heterosexual people to fill the void.

However, let's change your example a bit to make this a legitimate situation. Let's say that partaking in gay activities has a nasty side-effect of causing outbreaks of leprosy (completely hypothetical). Now, is it moral to do these activities, knowing that you will cause leprosy to others? Of course not. This example demonstrates how changing the community threat changes what is right and wrong.

But it's not always that simple. Let's use a gray area example. Let's assume that there were only two people left on the planet: a girl and a gay man. Is it moral for the gay man to refuse the woman?

This is an example where morality simply breaks down and it's up to the individuals to decide what to do. These decisions simply have no moral bearing. Only two decisions go beyond morality. Either, the action has no effect on the community, or the action is a necessary decision that effects 50% of the people negatively and 50% of the people positively. Otherwise, any logical decision is always a moral one.

There's a couple issues in your argument I didn't address.

I, personally, have a real problem with defining morality based on the benefit to the community

My basis on morality and all the examples I used were based on "threat to community", not community benefit. For the community benefit scenario, you have to weigh the benefits vs the threats.

I think the error that most people make is that they underestimate the devastation of negative threats as opposed to positive benefits. To demonstrate, let's say that you have twenty people who would all benefit from killing one person. In the short term, this may seem like a good idea. But, it's far from logical in creating a stable, productive environment.

First, there is the Pandora's box effect: by committing the act, it sets the stage for it to be committed again. Secondly, the act is absolute annihilation; it is the end of reality for a particular individual.
Third, the act is a waste that cannot be replaced; no amount of benefit can equal that amount of threat.
Fourth, the morale of the community is damaged.
..and the list goes on.

Simply put, life is just so precious that we will hold it above all other benefits. Even for suffering, the effects are always far more devastating to the community. Just as it is immoral, it is also illogical to kill or bring on unwanted suffering when the benefit is not absolutely necessary.

A racist community may do very well for a very long time, but one might question just how moral is that community.

Morality and rationality cannot be judged by success. There are more factors at work which determine whether a community does well.

Also, I cannot think of any situation where racism could actually benefit a community in the long run.

Here's what Einstein had to say : (works for me)

"A human being is part of the whole called by us universe, a part limited in time and space. We experience ourselves, our thoughts and feelings as something separate from the rest. A kind of optical delusion of consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from the prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty. The true value of a human being is determined by the measure and the sense in which they have obtained liberation from the self. We shall require a substantially new manner of thinking if humanity is to survive." (Albert Einstein, 1954)

Well, Buddhism talks of this.

Einstein states:
"The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It should transcend personal God and avoid dogma and theology. Covering both the natural and the spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things natural and spiritual as a meaningful unity. Buddhism answers this description .. If there is any religion that could cope with modern scientific needs it would be Buddhism"

He also says this:
"It is clear also that "serving God" was equated with "serving the living". The best of the Jewish people, especially the Prophets and Jesus, contended tirelessly for this.
Judaism is thus no transcendental religion; it is concerned with life as we live it and as we can, to a certain extent, grasp it, and nothing else. It seems to me, therefore, doubtful whether it can be called a religion in the accepted sense of the word, particularly as no "faith" but the sanctification of life in a supra-personal sense is demanded of the Jew."

I like your recollection of Carl Sagan's "stardust".

Yes you are made of star dust.