“Was that decision rational and ethical or emotional and irresponsible?”

Emotions themselves are not automatically ethical or unethical or responsible or irresponsible.
Emotions are sort of pre-conduct alerts or indicators. They are our minds’ reflex evaluation of circumstances in which we find ourselves, in situations we did not anticipate or that we have not had time to consider and reflect upon in advance

Emotions can but not always become unethical or irresponsible when…

1. They pollute the decision-making process an individual uses when evaluating what is the most ethical course in a particular situation.

2. The individual has become accustomed to responding emotionally as their default response to any event, problem, or unusual circumstance…

3. …Or the individual’s initial emotional reaction is contrary to how a reasonable or sane person should react, as with a positive response to something that should illicit sadness or anger.

Individual emotions, then, are better defined as “the reasonable immediate gut response to particular situations”. Anger is the emotion a reasonable person feels when someone initiates unjust or harmful actions. Sadness is the emotion a reasonable person feels at the loss of something valuable. Happiness is the emotion a reasonable person feels when virtuous conduct leads to good outcomes, and so on. By this measure, the woman’s alleged emotion in response the danger her dog faced on the Titanic is quite normal. It is what the legend holds that she did after that, given the circumstances, that poses the ethical problem:

1 Not getting into a lifeboat left more room for others in lifeboats, therefore increasing the likelihood of others’ survival if only marginally. She would not have known this, and it doesn’t seem like this was part of her decision.

2. Staying on the sinking ship did NOT increase the likelihood of the dog’s survival.

3. Comforting an animal during a frightening and confusing situation is a good thing. Still, I doubt there was much comfort rendered during the final moments of asphyxiation. I also doubt that the dog recognized any real danger during the moments she would have been able to comfort the dog.

4. Comforting the dog DID reduce her ability to assist others who wanted to survive the wreck.

5. Staying on the ship to perish removed her from the lives of others who may have been depending on her at home or her destination (if there were such people).

6. Her death was going emotionally harm those who cared about her.

7. Staying with the dog as a source mere comfort while not taking actions to try to save the dog without risking the lives of other passengers, such as trying to find floating debris, strikes me as virtue signalling.

I get where the Ann Isham of Titanic legend was coming from, but I think on the balance her choice was irrational, unethical and allowed emotion take over her decision-making in a situation that requires clear, rational analysis. The story is supposed to sound endearing, but the more I think about it the more sickening it seem. Now I need to know if that sickening feeling is fair and reasonable.

I think it is.