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

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.

This paper is an examination of Robert Nozick's argument in The Nature of RATIONALITY that instrumental RATIONALITY is defective, and that the defects of instrumental RATIONALITY can be understood through a careful appraisal of the significance of Newcomb's paradox and the prisoners' dilemma.In both Anarchy, State and Utopia and in The Nature of RATIONALITY, Nozick considers the question of why we should be rational, and concludes that the call of reason issues from the fact that we value what we are. RATIONALITY is so important to us that it becomes a duty because it is in terms of and by means of RATIONALITY that we understand who we are. Our worldview is an artifact shaped, at least in part, by our evaluative standards of cognitive assessment.Nozick goes on to ask why we should value that. And to answer the query, he considers the functions that RATIONALITY may have, beginning with instrumental RATIONALITY. To be instrumentally rational is to pursue one's goals and desires in the most efficient and effective way. Hence, prudence and self-interest commend instrumental RATIONALITY, or, what amounts to the same thing, instrumentality commends itself. Being prudent is itself prudent. However, Nozick concedes that the value of RATIONALITY goes beyond what can be explained in terms of a purely instrumental RATIONALITY.Even if we were to begin with a purely instrumental view of RATIONALITY, we might come to value it for its own sake, and so it may come to have intrinsic value. We should be rational because we value being that way. The endorsement given by reason to instrumental RATIONALITY, however, is not the issuing of a blank check. Instrumental RATIONALITY itself will counsel that we not put too much time and effort into developing the skills of instrumental RATIONALITY, for beyond a certain point the amount gained in overall efficiency will not be worth the lost opportunities for other pursuits. Nozick argues that actions could acquire value not only because of the consequences which can be expected to follow from them, but because of what Nozick calls their symbolic utility. Some, but not all, cases in which one decides to perform an act because of its symbolic utility appear to be rational. All of the convincing cases of rational action performed because of symbolic utility offered by Nozick are cases of action performed in accordance with principle. Consideration of the sage provides the occasion to introduce additional means by which value may accrue to an action, in terms of which we may judge the performance of the action to be rational. There is no harm in considering these means as independent elements of symbolic utility, provided we bear in mind that these elements may be quantitatively incommensurable with those derived from accordance with principle. Rules or principles provide only one way in which actions may be guided. Another way is by consideration of consequences. A third way in which actions may be guided is with reference to virtue. Sometimes the appeal to virtue will be personified in an exemplar. We acquire skills by imitation of the actions of teachers. We may attempt to acquire virtues by acting in ways that are typical of the virtuous exemplar. This mode of practical guidance plays an important role in various traditions, from those of the ancient Greeks to those of the Abrahamic religions.While Nozick argues in favor of an expanded notion of instrumental RATIONALITY, I counter that the notion of practical RATIONALITY should be expanded beyond that which can be considered as instrumental RATIONALITY.

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