cannot be reasonably thought to be solely a function of reason. — Pantagruel

This is the process of how moral judgement takes place.

External perception on the moral case -> Feelings and Beliefs on the case -> Reasoning -> Moral Judgement.

So, there would be some elements of the emotional side of the moral case perception, but it would be reasoning which filters out the emotional side of the perception by interpretation and analysis on the content of the perception. The final moral judgements are always made by practical reasoning alone.

External perception on the moral case -> Feelings and Beliefs on the case -> Reasoning -> Moral Judgement. — Corvus

So reasoning is a little black box then? Are you in some sense reducing reasoning to logic? As far as I know, there is no consensus on the nature of reasoning (such as is implied by your axiom) that would allow it to be so neatly distinguished from the elements of morality to allow it to be decisively identified as the basis of morality.

So reasoning is a little black box then? Are you in some sense reducing reasoning to logic? — Pantagruel

It is not a black box.   It was to show a typical progress in moral judgement in order to help you understand where the emotions and reasoning are in the process.

Of course some folks would just make moral judgments from the Feelings and Belief stage, which are likely to be irrational  psychological states, which have little to do with the moral truths.

You build the situation with your perception and reasoning, not with feelings and beliefs. Feelings, beliefs, opinions and interests blind you from the reality preventing you from making right decisions and judgements. — Corvus

I asked you this before: Could you provide an example of a situation in which feelings, belief, opinions, and interests do not play a role?

This is why you need reasoning. You will know that torturing is not the only way to get the information. You could have good conversation with them, and persuade them to give you the information from their own accord. It is all about utilising your practical reasoning wisely and skillfully. — Corvus

I wanted to say:"My point is that pure reason cannot resolve moral problems but adds problems." "Can" is a typo that I corrected it in the post.

Going back to MoK's point, Kant would ask you, if torturing was the last resort for the resolution. Have you tried all other means to get the information out? — Corvus

According to Kant, killing, torturing, etc. are objectively wrong by this he means that these actions are not allowed under any circumstances. There is no room for discussion here.

The problem with torturing to get the information out, is that it may still fail to get the information even you have tried with utmost degree, if they firmly withhold the information. — Corvus

Torturing of the terrorist is allowed by all means if we can save lives of individuals. The torturing is morality right even if we assume that the terrorist may withhold the information.

I think the point to bear in mind is that there is definitely not a consensus that reason operates independently of emotion in the human psyche. There is a holistic thinking process that includes the complete spectrum of human mental states, including logic, emotion, and imagination.

:up:

I would also add, reason cannot be the foundation of morality insofar as reason is itself subject to moral constraints and conditions. A discrete or siloed view of reason and morality does justice to neither.

I think the point to bear in mind is that there is definitely not a consensus that reason operates independently of emotion in the human psyche. There is a holistic thinking process that includes the complete spectrum of human mental states, including logic, emotion, and imagination. — Pantagruel

You need to exclude all the irrational elements in the process of moral reasoning. If we mix them up, then you won't be able to arrive at the fair and just moral decisions.

I asked you this before: Could you provide an example of a situation in which feelings, belief, opinions, and interests do not play a role? — MoK

I already have added the more explanation of how those factors do hamper coming to moral judgements with your example of the lock-in man. Hence you must use reasoning only on the judgement. If you are interested in my posts on the examples, you need to track back my posts. Obviously you missed what I wrote to you.

According to Kant, killing, torturing, etc. are objectively wrong by this he means that these actions are not allowed under any circumstances. There is no room for discussion here. — MoK

But you haven't asked Kant in person, what would be the case torturing the terrorists. If you did, he would have said to you "Have you tried all other means to get the information exhaustively?" and "Are you sure the terrorists you are wanting to torture are the real terrorists? What if they were not the terrorists? What if you are trying to torture innocent folks for mistaken identity?"

Torturing of the terrorist is allowed by all means if we can save lives of individuals. The torturing is morality right even if we assume that the terrorist may withhold the information. — MoK

There is possibility that you have mistaken the identity of the folks whom you thought were terrorists, but they were not.

Torturing the folks are crime itself, hence you would be committing moral wrong there.
Also there is a possibility that no one's life is in danger, and your motive for torturing could have been caused by propaganda and paranoia or just a desire to torture someone.

And there is no guarantee that torturing the folks will give you any information to save any life. So why try to justify on torturing?

See this is a result of moral judgements based on feelings, beliefs, opinions and interest. It is not only wrong in factuality, but also could be committing moral wrong itself.

Kant would say, that torturing is not right way in saving human lives. Because it won't work and it is morally wrong itself.

I already have added the more explanation of how those factors do hamper coming to moral judgements with your example of the lock-in man. Hence you must use reasoning only on the judgement. — Corvus

And I already mentioned that you cannot have a situation without considering these factors. According to Kant killing a human is not allowed in all circumstances. It is the person feelings in the case of locked-in syndrome that matters in this situation. As far as I recall, you agree that it is the right of a person with locked-in syndrome to decide about his life. This is against what pure reason suggests.

But you haven't asked Kant, what would be the case torturing the terrorists in person. If you did, he would have said to you "Have you tried all other means to get the information exhaustively? — Corvus

Let's assume that we tried all other approaches.

Are you sure the terrorists you are wanting to torture are the real terrorists? — Corvus

Let's assume so for the sake of argument.

And I already mentioned that you cannot have a situation without considering these factors. According to Kant killing a human is not allowed in all circumstances. It is the person feelings in the case of locked-in syndrome that matters in this situation. As far as I recall, you agree that it is the right of a person with locked-in syndrome to decide about his life. This is against what pure reason suggests. — MoK

Well, if you asked me about the case personally, my answer to that would be, you are asking a wrong person. I don't have enough details about the case to apply my pure reason on the case. You need to bring a 1000 pages of the social report regarding the case with his situations i.e. medical history and psychological analysis, and his family circumstance etc etc.

I would say, if anyone made a moral decision on the case without all the factual details, then it would be a sheer nonsense, not moral judgements.

Kant is just giving you a guideline. You don't have to cling on him with the trivial contradictions. You need to face and deal with the reality at present world.

Reason is the collective-cumulative product of human interactions, in other words, of social evolution. Which often evolves dialectically, through the juxtaposition of contradictory positions (Hegel).

Critique and negation of norms....must count as a critique of validity claims....the conflict over normative validity is constitutive of social evolution. (Brunkhorst,Critical Theory of Legal Revolutions)

This aligns with my earlier example and explanation, which I think is rather clearer in the context of the OP. To impugn someone's rationality is, by definition, to impugn their beliefs. You cannot make pretense of some sacrosanct faculty called "reason" when normative beliefs are at least as constitutive to the holistic process and project of thought and communication as is reason.

Peirce says that man is a symbol. He is not reducing the meaning of human existence to propositions. Rather, he is expanding and enhancing the dimensions of symbolicity.

Let's assume so for the sake of argument. — MoK

I would presume Kant would say, well by rational thinking there is no evidence torturing would save anyone's lives. Therefore torturing is not justified and wrong. Don't do it.

Your conclusion that torturing is justified is based on your wrong premise that torturing will save lives. Your argument is invalid and unsound.

So you disagree with your own statement?

I would presume Kant would say, well by rational thinking there is no evidence torturing would save anyone's lives. — Corvus

Let's assume it does.

So you disagree with your own statement? — MoK

Where did I say I disagreed with my own statement?

Let's assume it does. — MoK

The truth is, it doesn't. There is no evidence torturing saves human lives.

Where did I say I disagreed with my own statement? — Corvus

Didn't you say that a person with locked-in syndrome has the right to terminate his life?

The truth is, it doesn't. There is no evidence torturing saves human lives. — Corvus

It may, but the fact that it may gives us the right to torture the terrorist.

Didn't you say that a person with locked-in syndrome has the right to terminate his life? — MoK

I have never said that. I said it is wrong to kill any life. But he also has his right to decide on his own life. No one has right to decide his life for him.

It may, but the fact that it may gives us the right to torture the terrorist. — MoK

It is a completely irrational statement based on the wrong assumption.

I have never said that. I said it is wrong to kill any life. — Corvus

How are you going to assist him if killing is wrong to you?

But he also has his right to decide on his own life. — Corvus

He can decide about his life but he cannot execute the decision so he is very dependent on us to execute his decision.

It is a completely irrational statement based on the wrong assumption. — Corvus

It is in fact very rational statement. You are not happy with this example, let me give you another example: You face a psychopath who is willing to kill you with a knife. You however have a gun. Would you kill him or let him kill you miserably?

How are you going to assist him if killing is wrong to you? — MoK

If he needed my assistance, I would just say to him, "Man get a life. Get wild GFs, and enjoy life man."

He can decide about his life but he cannot execute the decision so he is very dependent on us to execute his decision. — MoK

Will have to persevere with advice and encouragement for leading positive life for him.

If he needed my assistance, I would just say to him, "Man get a life. Get wild GFs, and enjoy life man." — Corvus

You don't know what a locked-in syndrome is. Do you?