As I understand it, rationality has no part in determining the end, just the means by which it is sought.

The really irrational person has irrational ends, at least n the short term -- the desire to destroy has become generalized. There may be a deeper end which is somehow good, such as the desire to survive a situation which happened long ago. But I wouldn't say that ends cannot be irrational as well as means. People sometimes have low level insistent little drives to dominate others, for example -- and while you cvould argue that they are trying to acheive long term survival (a good end) through the means of dominating others (an irrational solution in many instances) it gets kind of chicken-eggy there -- you could equally well say they choose to dominate others (a bad end) thorugh the various means of overwhelming, undermining, intimidating, etc (bad means). Guess it depends on where you draw the scale. I have a strong sense that there is a lot of rationality and goodness buried in the most anti-social individual, but sometimes it is very hard or impossible to reach. That's just my opinion.

The end of making yourself feared by others is an irrational one because any experience with people will inform you that those who fear you also dislike you and will try to get even with you, sooner or later, for frightening them. It is also irrational because the same purpose-- for example, security among people, or esteem from others -- can better be served by merit, communication, and helping. Those are therefore more rational answers to the same equation because they acheive more good results across a wider spectrum. Diplomacy trumps war for the same reason -- it does less harm, usually.

A