Introduction: From a long time ago, benefiting from technology has been an inevitable thing for human interests, which is born and based on science. It can be claimed that there is harmony between ethics, science and technology, which promote each other. In this article, the researcher discusses this harmony and compatibility. Material and Methods: The current review study was descriptive and using the study of sources and research keywords among the books and articles published in the databases of Thomson Information Institute, Science Direct and Pub Med. Conclusion: As science and technology continue to advance and become more integrated into our daily lives, ethical considerations become increasingly important. For example, the rise of artificial intelligence (AI) has raised questions about the potential implications of creating machines that can make autonomous decisions and take actions. If science and technology were considered as a tool, it should have been able to subjugate humans and influence all aspects of behavior and values. While it has become a problem that eventually becomes aligned with morality by applying reason, and people now seek help from it as a tool.

Rationality of Faith is one of the most important issues in contemporary philosophy of Religion that most philosophers of religion have discussed it. Alvin Plantinga and Richard Swinburne with theistic approach have discussed this subject. Swinburne with evidentialist approach concludes that religious belief like every another belief can be rational only if it has evidence and of cource theists have evidence for their belives so they are justified and rational. But Plantinga criticizes evidentialism and classical foundationalism. Instead of justification, He uses concept of Warrant and finally concludes that Christian believes have proper warrant so Christians are rational in their believes.In this project I want to survey and compare this two great thinkers ’views. My questions in this project are: 1) what criticisms Plantinga can has to Swinburne approach? 2) Is not Plantinga’s analogy argument a Kind of evidentialism? 3) Way does Plantinga use concept of Warrant instead of Justification? 4) What is difference between Warrant and Justification? 5) Are Christian believes properly warranted?

The rationality of ethics is one of the most important issues for philosophers. This concept includes judgment on rationality of choice and justification of beliefs as well as explanation and justification of moral behaviors.Strong, weak and moderate rationalists take different positions, based on their approaches to the concept of reason. Having more inclination to the role of emotions, weak rationalists do not agree with the others in epistemic and motivational role of reason. Despite many similarities, strong and moderate rationalists think differently about the role of cognitive and non-cognitive aspects of moral motivation.In this paper, we clarify the relationship between morality and reason in these three approaches. Justification of behaviors and moral motivation, as well as intemalism and extemalism are discussed in this paper. At last, the role virtue as a mean of justifying the moral rationality is emphasized.

Rationality as logical consistency is, formally, directly related to logical derivations. The idea behind reductio ad absurdum is captured in this relation.

Rationality or behavior based on reason is one of the most important attributes of individual and social human action and in this general sense, it is universal and common among human beings. Considering the cognitive, value and practical levels of rationality and explaining its reliance on ontological and epistemological foundations, reveals the difference between Islamic and instrumental rationality. On the other hand, rationality, since it organizes the behavior and social interaction of human beings, has an important role in determining the nature, realization and efficiency of social capital as one of the important factors in achieving growth and development. The study of the ratio of Islamic rationality in determining the nature, context and efficiency of social capital in comparison with the rationality of conventional economics (instrumental rationality) is important and should be considered for planning and policies to achieve the growth and development of the country. In this research, with an interdisciplinary philosophical-economic approach, while explaining what Islamic rationality is, relying on its principles and enumerating the components and dimensions of social capital, the relationship between Islamic rationality and social capital and its advantages compared to instrumental rationality are investigated. Findings show that the nature of social capital based on Islamic rationality is beyond mere objective and historical communication based on social needs and the basis of individual and collective action on Islamic rationality based on strategic principles and economic human beings can logically level Promote trust and participation and prevent the negative aspects of social capital, pave the way for its realization and greater efficiency

Most differences in socio-economic opinions stem from misunderstanding the concept of “rationality. In this paper we present two different interpretation of rationality. We explain that “Evolutionary Rationality” is more conductive to development while “constructivist Rationality” divert attention from a free spontaneous market to socio economic engineering, thereby diverting development from its evolutionary path

Morality as somehow involving rationality and impartiality received classic expression in philosophy of Kant who frankly speaks of “rational and impartial spectator” in contemplating the universal law. The overall aim of this paper is to show (1) that the idea of morality implies rationality and this will be reached at in refuting the moral scepticism; but (2) it does not necessarily indicates impartiality, since the justification of the principle of impartiality does not solve the problem of justifying particular moral principles. I will start with the question “Why should we be moral?” and then turn to moral rationality to refute moral scepticism, finally the relationship between rational morality and the principle of impartiality will be reconsidered.

Politics has been articulated differently within twentieth century political thought currents as followed: as a super-structure versus economic infrastructure or a minimal concern which merely should serve individual interests or a kind of domination, deception and repression. But, a narration by Habermas about politics is based on communicative rationality. His thought generally refers to the critique on liberation and liberating action. Therefore, it is in the context of such a general attitude which his philosophy confronts and contradicts with the most important twentieth century thinking currents. By reconstructing the ideas of Weber, Marx and Frankfurt school in front of the comprehensive instrumental rationality, he puts forward the ideas of communicative rationality and lays down the rational and philosophical bases for politics.

The author tries in this article to assess "rationality" in Descartes' philosophy based on his works. First, meanings of rationality are examined. Having determined the best meaning, the author provides an analytic review of Descartes' philosophy. By dividing his philosophy into ontology and epistemology, the article evaluates "rationality" in both parts.In his epistemological system, Descartes starts a journey towards skepticism-as a stage of irrationality-by introducing "methodological doubt". Then he tries to return to the realm of rationality by way of cogito. In his ontological system, however, he becomes close to the zenith of rationality, i.e. belief in the One Real Essence, through cogito. Afterwards, Descartes' ontology distances itself from rationality by its tendency towards plurality and the essentiality of quiddity.