When a human being acts, is it always in an internally logically consistent (i.e. rational) manner?
To answer this question, the assumption is that emotions are a part of our internal logic. We have an internal conception or model of the world, and that is both a mental and emotional model. Either my mental model or my emotions may not be a correct or good model with respect to how other people see the world, but my question is relative to the internal thoughts and emotions of the actor themselves - is the final choice that is made rational when considering how that person views the world.
There is some discussion of this here, especially how the emotions are a means of internalizing what we learn of the world, and using them as internal "input" into our decisions is legitimate as a source of input separate from our direct senses.
Now, I do understand this is a difficult area to really prove anything, but is there a general consensus, or possibly even different schools of thought on the matter?
Some areas I can think of that may be a counter example here:
When we have no reference to the current situation. Is a baby, for example, really making rational choices when it is out exploring/learning about the world? That can be extended to adults in any unfamiliar situation.
Spontaneous or "random" behavior. Why did I roll out of the other side of the bed this morning? Take a different way to work today? etc.
"Snap" decisions due to lack of time, etc. Though this is likely fine as it could be described as rising from probabilities based on our experience in similar situations (i.e. best guess given the current data)