One problem, as I see it, is that people confuse 'rational' and 'reason'. 'Reasoning' is the employment of sound logic. 'Reason' is taken to be 'sound' reasoning--which amounts to no more than reasoning with which one agrees.

It all goes back to the premises. Wherever matters of morality arise, those premises can only be beliefs. All moralities follow from beliefs--though those beliefs can be sacral or secular.

The problem for society is that no belief(s) are universal: held by all people. Basing the governance of society on beliefs must therefore be a case of some imposing their beliefs on others.

Rationality does provide a way forward. There is an ethic that involves no beliefs, but follows from the observation that human beings have no choice but to effect choices: choose among perceived alternatives and take action to bring that choice to fruition.

It does not contradict the ethical imperatives of any religion, but it has a universality that no ethic following from any belief can have. It is an ethic by which people can govern themselves, and it can be applied to the political process and the economy.

if curious: "The Ethic of Justice" (here in Medium, but not behind the paywall)