Philosophers like Immanuel Kant believed that rationality is the highest human faculty. So did Rene Descartes, Thomas Aquinas, John Locke, and some other highly regarded philosophers. The focus on the core definition of rationality, which elaborates it as the ability to think, decide, and act based on reason, logic, and evidence rather than impulse, bias, or emotion, might be the reason that most people today believe that rationality has indeed died. They have all the reasons to believe so, as today’s world is cluttered with disinformation, polarization, wars, AI debates, and climate change denial, concluding that today’s world is facing a crisis of thought. Now, for a moment, analyze; doesn’t this analysis resolve the question much too fast than it should be?

If you revisit the literal essence of rationality, it demands reason, logic, and evidence in decisions. All these elements have always existed in every decision made by a country, leader, armed forces, or authorities, and any other individual with the power to make a decision. The decision maker could be you or the person sitting next to you, regardless of what educational or analytical potential they hold. Rationality existed in every human decision made to date. 

The decision maker has a logic and justification for their act. For example, a man slapped another man and left everyone flabbergasted. Initially, it seems like an impulsive action, but the one who slapped would surely have some justification for his action. To some, it would make sense, and to others it won’t. This means that the consequences of a decision appear to be positive or negative to different individuals. Here enters the role of objectivity that decides whether a certain policy or action was rational or irrational. Hence, it won’t be appropriate to call rationality dead, it exists in every human decision. The real question is whether rationality is guided by empathy or hijacked by cold self-interest and impulsiveness.

Consider the broad events of history that jolted the course of human events. The two World Wars had a rationale behind them – WWI occurred due to the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, which sparked a nationalistic crisis. On the other hand, WWII has a series of ‘logical reasons’ ranging from the Treaty of Versailles, the rise of fascism in Europe, and militarism in Japan, alongside the aggressive expansionist policies of Nazi Germany. If all those personalities were alive today and interviewed, they would give their logic that backed the war. Not surprisingly, it would make complete sense for many people.

If we ought to create an analogy of today’s world, Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, from his perspective, has the rationale to reassert control, prevent NATO expansion, and revive Russian influence. The current war crisis of the Middle East or the escalations between  India and Pakistan would carry a list of answers for ‘what is the logic behind these events?’.Even other areas discussed earlier have a solid rationality basis. For instance, take disinformation; the COVID-19 misinformation incident “microchip in vaccines”  was mindless but had a rationale of solidifying mistrust of authority, rebellion against fear of control, or political gain. Another arena is the debate on AI, where many tech giants are never in favour of pausing AI, as it would slow innovation and directly affect profit gains. A recent survey by AlixPartners found that 76 pc of tech executives identify AI as a primary driver of their company’s long-term growth, and 90 pc expect to increase AI-related R&D and capital expenditures in 2025.

All of these situations solidify Max Weber’s “Instrumental Rationality”, which states every action has a rationale, even destructive ones. The world driven by such a kind of rationality selects the most effective “means” (actions, tools, strategies) to achieve a desired “end” (goal). Nowhere would it be morally correct in its means and goals. This brings us to the central problem we’re facing: Why rationality alone isn’t enough and what could assist it to be more influential? The answer we seek is to combine rationality with empathy.

When rationality leaves empathy behind, it legitimises oppression, manipulation, and even genocide. This is the reason why our current AI algorithms are highly rational but designed to maximize clicks, which eventually fuels polarization. Alongside, we witness more wars as an act of consolidating power, but they are destructive to human dignity. The missing piece of empathy acts as a moral compass that brings a balance to rationality by supporting sustainable, humane decision-making. This is the base of Kantian Rationality, which believes true rationality must include moral law and empathy, not just cold logic.

The moment rationality meets empathy, there is a chance that diplomacy would take over war, AI development would avoid exploitation, and future policies would have a hint of responsibility toward future generations.

To gather up our discussion, rationality isn’t dead but is in danger without empathetic measures. The question that we need to ask is whether we still have time to unify the forces of rationality and empathy. If we do, it would be as big an achievement as the unification of the four fundamental forces of the universe. Also, if successful, we could remind the world that while science drives innovation, it is the union of rationality and empathy that sustains humanity.