Why Rationality Is A Logically Necessary Component Of Righteousness

Maybe morality exists, and maybe it does not.  Both are possible although only one can be true at once.  Each is unverifiable.  There are still logical truths about what could and could not be the case.  For one thing, morality is by necessity about what should and should not be done independent of preference and convenience.  Whatever the moral system that might be true, this is true of it.  For another thing, eternal torture cannot be justice because it infinitely exceeds the worst individual acts of wrongdoing.  All of these and other philosophical facts are dictated by logic, which is true in itself, independent of all else.  Logic cannot be false without still being true, as then by logical necessity, logic would be false, and thus it would still be true either way!  This is the foundation of why someone cannot be righteous, whatever logically possible moral standard is correct if there is such a thing, without being rational.  All other truths must be consistent with logic because it is inherently true, and so morality could not be ungoverned by it--and no one can know anything about what is even possibly correct apart from reason.

Caring about subjective perceptions, subjective moral preferences, or cultural norms/consensus is not the same as caring about morality: the latter is caring about what should be done regardless of what it might ultimately entail.  There is no such thing as someone, for instance, humble, hard-working, and kind being righteous--and this is if these particular qualities really are obligatory--if the only reason they did so is due to personal conscience or social conditioning.  They did not do it for the sake of logical correctness because they assumed these things are good or never thought about the issue, ignoring logic and moral epistemology altogether; they did not do it for the sake of morality because they in truth were only operating not only on assumptions, but also on erroneous foundations like sheer preference.  They cared only that they liked or otherwise psychologically benefitted from doing or not doing something.  Even if they really felt like humility or kindness was good, they irrationally pursued their own moral feelings rather than obligation itself.  They could not even know they have done so aside from grasping logic free of assumptions.

If giving to the poor is obligatory (or even supererogatory), and someone gives to the poor without concern for whether they should by only caring that they feel like they should, then they are only aiding them on whim.  It is about the giver feeling good about themself on fallacious and therefore epistemologically erroneous grounds.  Just as doing something that genuinely is morally correct and mandatory is not enough to make someone righteous if they are doing it with selfish motives (such as manipulating public perception for the sake of egoistic power), doing something morally good or mandatory is not righteous if you do it by accident or without actually caring about logical necessity or moral obligation.  Since I cannot know if morality exists or which possible moral obligations are true (though there is evidence for the Bible's veracity and thus its moral system), yes, this means I cannot know if I am righteous or not, but at least I am rational.  I make no assumptions about morality and genuinely care about doing what I should if there is such a thing.

Also, since morality and truths about morality depend on logic and not the other way around, this makes logic morally important if there is good and evil.  There is literally no way that logic is not what morality metaphysically and epistemologically hinges on!  Humility, kindness, and so on cannot possibly be the foundation of morality.  Only logic can be, and so a person cannot be righteous without at least being rational--rationalistically aligned with the objective truths of logic.  Just because logic is inherently true does not mean morality is.  Morality's very possibility depends on consistency with the self-necessary axioms of logic, and good and evil are not self-evident whatsoever.  This is aside from the fact that, again, you cannot be morally correct for simply doing whatever your subjective emotions and arbitrary culture would compel you to.  To avoid making any assumptions, though, one must be rationalistic.

Conscience is not proof that some things are good or evil.  It is a subjective matter of emotion and/or intuition, which can vary from person to person (if they even have a conscience!) and be quite malleable within the same individual over time.  Anything that really is objectively good or obligatory is such entirely independent of perception, meaning no one's perception makes anything good or reveals what is good, or if there is such a thing.  Few people realize these things, much less all of them at once and their other ramifications that I have pointed out elsewhere.  Very few who would agree do so on the basis of pure logicality, making no assumptions and starting with the inherent truth of logical axioms.  Shedding assumptions would reveal that all of the things mentioned in this post are true by logical necessity.  They cannot be illusory or otherwise false.  It really is impossible to be righteous without at a minimum being rational, which can only be achieved by being rationalistic.

Logic, people.  It is very fucking helpful.