morality is rational

"Isn't it rational to kill billions of people to reduce the human population? No, that would be completely unnecessary and immoral." There, we got that word. Immoral. It's our morals that stop us from thinking in cold logic. Killing billions would give us more land, lesser power, food, water consumption, and lesser pollution as there would be lesser cars and appliances. There are other benefits too. If you say the government would get power, we can easily declare it to be a one-time event only. Plus, it depends upon the government. "How does pride make it easier to be rational? Pride gives a person more self esteem and motivation, which make it easier to think clearly. For example, a student who has done well on previous tests in a given subject will usually find it easier to focus on studying than a student who expects to do badly on tests." No, I disagree. Pride would make the student feel he has no need to study, while someone with a low self-esteem will know that he needs to study hard or he has no chance. "Why is murder bad on egoism?" A combination of murder and stealing will provide productivity for us, is rational through the principle what comes around goes around and can be a reason for pride if you are among crooks. The morality that stops us from doing that isn't rational. Yes, fearing the law enforcement is rational, but wouldn't it be a reason for pride if we bested them? As for friends, other people's opinion doesn't matter as it isn't rational or productive. Pride is an emotion more than a rational goal, so I think I will exclude that. "6. How can survival be a moral value, since it isn't exclusive to humans and it isn't a learned value?" Humans are the only species that can formulate survival as an explicit goal and work out rational principles that will promote it. Other species survive, but they don't consciously grasp that survival is their goal. Survival is a learned value for humans, since countless people take anti-life actions. Basically, the anti-life goals taken for survival of the human race are moral values, am I correct? But then every animal works towards survival. Trying cutting down trees, a bird will move its nest to another forests. Try chasing a flock, one will die will the others flee. Survival is an instinct, not a learned moral value. The army works to protect us from being killed. Same is with animals who mark their territory. To guard their species, a lion (for ex.) patrol the borders for animals who trespass his territory. 7. How can morality be based on logic if logic is only concerned with factual cause-effect relationships? Being moral has better long term consequences than being immoral. If you think stealing is a better long term policy than honesty and productive work, then I invite you to take a trip to any jail. Some people do get away with stealing in the short term, but a person can never really know that they are going to get away with it, and eventually they will be caught. Not if they analyse all the cause and effect of their actions. Suppose I have to rob a bank. Firstly, we will make sure that stealing (cause) doesn't alert the police (effect) before we get away. Next, we would make sure our money (cause) doesn't lead the police to us (effect). Third, we must find means (cause) to overpower the security of the bank (effect). And of course masks. I don't see how could this go wrong. Plus, we have to make sure that we and our equipment are a match for the bank. Otherwise we must do a smaller scale robbery. There are still many unsolved cases in the history of the police records, and even more where some other innocent paid for the criminals' crimes. Why don't we want others to suffer, if it is productive for us, and therefore rational? Morality comes in. Thank you for this debate. Vote for the best debater.