Not at all. Logic doesn't need to be moral and, in fact, many logical conclusions are amoral. There are five people trapped in a snowstorm during the winter. T

Not at all. Logic doesn't need to be moral and, in fact, many logical conclusions are amoral. There are five people trapped in a snowstorm during the winter. They are out of food and have no means of going outside to gather more. They need to eat to survive or else they will all perish. The logical conclusion for survival is cannibalism. Then you have the varying moral scales of "kill someone and eat them", "draw sticks and the unlucky loser gets eaten", "wait for the first person to die, then eat what remains of their starved body", or "everyone chooses to die of starvation instead of eating one another". Among those choices - once again the logical conclusion for best chances of survival, namely "eating someone while they have enough meat to provide sustenance to the survivors" is typically considered amoral compared to the "everyone dies" or "eat the starved body and risk dying of starvation anyway" options. I'm sure there are plenty of in between options or other options I missed out on. But "logical" is not equivalent to "moral" except by chance.