There are a minimal shared set of ethical norms (even more so within specific cultures) that have allowed us to organise as a society. "Don't screw anyone over

There are a minimal shared set of ethical norms (even more so within specific cultures) that have allowed us to organise as a society. "Don't screw anyone over without justification" for example. They may not be enforced all the time but they are definitely shared by a majority. Bad things happening in the name of rationality tend to happen where people are not considering ethical outcomes. You can use computers to time traffic lights or launch missiles, doesn't mean computers are at fault. Building a social system that sees people put in gulags, if your course of action is intended to uphold ethical norms - is irrational. Peoples preference, their goals, their opinions on which life is better aren't plucked out of the air. They follow logic based on a persons circumstance, history and assumptions about what will happen based on their choice. Coal miners didnt strike because they were marxist, they did it for better wages. Gun owners want to keep guns not because of a philosophical stance, but because they distrust the government or just like shooting guns.` And yes, it's complicated to make decisions and resolve competing interests. But attempting to categorise individual stances on decisions into two groups of thought - when it's actually individual choices on some very low level stuff - doesn't add anything to the table. Thats what Im confused about..