Since the vote is currently split between morals and ethics, I thought this from WiseGeek was interesting:

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-difference-between-ethics-and-morals.htm wrote:The difference between ethics and morals can seem somewhat arbitrary to many, but there is a basic, albeit subtle, difference.  Morals define personal character, while ethics stress a social system in which those morals are applied.  In other words, ethics point to standards or codes of behavior expected by the group to which the individual belongs.  This could be national ethics, social ethics, company ethics, professional ethics, or even family ethics.  So while a person’s moral code is usually unchanging, the ethics he or she practices can be other-dependent. 

So which reason is the "better" for assisting the old woman?  And more importantly, why? 

I feel morality is more emotive as ethics is more intellectual, my emotions would not allow me to ignore the situation.  My thoughts could always devise an excuse but I can not ignore how I would feel about myself.  I have to go with the moral obligation. 

For sure.  Of course intellect can cause, and be a motive for, us to react but as you say, thought has many uses, including pre-emptive action or planning.  I see the human as containing an emotional self and an intellectual self and I do not deny the usefulness of either.  I have a saying "We are emotional beings at our core, thought is but a satellite in orbit" I also have another "Emotion is like a G.P.S navigator, we THINK we know a short-cut but we should stick to the G.P.S instructions.  I feel that thought is extremely useful but it is a tool of the heart, I am not of the view that the heart is but an annoyance to thought.  Thought has so much power over the heart, it calls to mind another saying "The worst enemy of the heart is the mind because the mind thinks it knows what is best for the heart".  So yes I like the idea that the mind is a tool for the heart, that its (thoughts) motivations are best if they are done in the interests of the heart. 
That we are not a mind who owns a heart but we are a heart that owns a mind. 

You may well be right there, I feel it is a matter of free-will, one of many that define us.  It sounds ideal, the equal partnership, but I feel "No one can serve two masters.  Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other." ( I do not consider myself religious, but I like to dabble occasionally in Biblical philosophy) I suppose the two should be reasonable with each other, that who so ever places the best arguement, but that is the problem with the mind, that it contains advantages such as logic and imagination to convince us the thought is greater than the feeling.  It is like a scientist and a creationist arguing where the scientist knows all these facts but the creationists only defence, the only thing he can say is "God". 

Raytrek wrote:You may well be right there, I feel it is a matter of free-will, one of many that define us.  It sounds ideal, the equal partnership, but I feel "No one can serve two masters.  Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other." 

Are you familiar with Tarot?  There is one trump, the Chariot, that exemplifies this situation.  It is normally depicted as a chariot being pulled by two horses (or sphinx, or other creatures), one black and one white.  They represent the opposing forces that pull the chariot, yin and yang, time and space, feeling and thinking.  On their own, they'll each try to run where ever they want to go, and the chariot, itself, will just go in circles as one opposing force overpowers the other.  But... it is up to the driver, the guy behind the reins, that can direct the two to cooperate and direct those forces to follow a path--and working together, they can get there quickly and efficiently. 

Personally, I do not consider that either the head, nor the heart, is qualified to run the entirety of the psyche.  Each is good at what they do, but neither should rule anything outside their own domain.  Enter the concept of the conscious Self, whose domain IS the entirety of the psyche--that's the complex that should be in charge, and delegating feeling-related matters to the heart, and thinking-related matters to the head. 

If I understood you correctly, you raise an interesting point concerning free will... Do the complexes within the psyche have free will of their own? 

If that IS the case, then I can see the competition rising up between complexes for domination.  As Sagar said in another topic, competition breeds fear and in this case, the fear would be entirely internal--fear of oneself, and suppressed "growth"--not of the body, but of consciousness. 

If free will is working towards a common goal, the system is more likely to be one of rapport and will be more tolerant of disagreements between the head and heart, to either work out a mutual solution or defer to other complexes for resolution. 

That is a great analogy to consider, thoughts and feelings being as two powerful horses, reined in by the charioteer, the self.  It makes humans sound like they are a cerberus, growling snapping and biting at each other for control over the body they share.  Interesting this concept of a third all encompassing entity, master, or potentially, of thought and feeling.  As I said "someone cannot serve two masters" I did not consider that "someone" can enslave the two masters. 

Raytrek wrote:As I said "someone cannot serve two masters" I did not consider that "someone" can enslave the two masters. 

It is only enslavement if it is rivalry.  Consider the condition where, after a long, hard day of work, all involved--both horses and driver--are really thirsty.  Do you think they would have to compete with each other to get to that pond and get a drink?  No--they'd work together and be there in an instant. 

It is the same with the complexes in the psyche.  They all have common needs, and one of them is to be respected.  If you've got the whip out, constantly flogging them, odds are you'll get anger, not respect. 

When one wants to bring the psyche into balance, then the abuse must stop and the various complexes need to be respected, trusted and honored for the jobs that they do. 

As Jung points out, it does depend on where your point of consciousness is located.  There are three realms where it can exist, the persona, the ego and the self.  If it is in the persona, then you have what is called a very "shallow" person, who will do anything to please (or annoy).  When in the ego, the most popular location, you get competition and rivalry.  When in the self, you get cooperation and rapport.  As chef Emeril says, try "kicking it up a notch!"