Morality is one's idea of what people (including but not limited to oneself) ought to do. This can be informed by both reason and emotion. In some cases emotion may say one thing but thinking about it comes up with a different answer. Usually in retrospect you are more likely to regret having based your moral decisions and judgments on emotions than you are on reason.
Rational ethics is a field of philosophy that has been heavily influenced by Kant and Plato. Personally, I do not see much differentiation between morals and logic. It seems that doing the "right" thing is based on making decisions that take into account multiple variables. Logic plays into what you should do as the right thing, if it needs to be done by you, and if the situation warrants it. Many people would say that you should give money to a man on the street if he's hungry and asking for help. Few people would do it if he's wearing a suit with a bluetooth in his ear.
And besides that line of thought, we can also look at the "social contract" that states that people don't hurt each other because they don't want to get hurt. Logic easily factors into morals, the problem comes when people try to apply morals into logic.
If rationality is concerned with establishing facts that appear to be objective to personal belief or opinion it would seem that emotional appeals would do nothing but distort or delude the process of being rational. And if morality is an emotional standpoint concerning behavior and does not have a provable objective foundation it would seem to be preferable to remain morally aloof when attempting to rationalize.
It seems that morality is irrationally established leaving moral debate to be a rationalization of irrational emotional positions which subsequently implies that one cannot hold a moral position without compromising the process of rational thought.