Are "logical" and "rational" objective classifications of a person's actions?

[One Above All]

(I had posted this on another forum, but got no responses for almost two weeks. Any coding issues are from having copied this text in its entirety and only glancing at it to fix them)

I've been thinking about how, if someone acts based on emotion, their actions are called "irrational" and/or "illogical". However, are those terms objectively applicable (by which I mean to ask if we can objectively say that a course of action would have been rational and/or logical instead of what occurred)? IMO, you could say the person was overcome with an emotion and acted based on that emotion, but nothing more. If the end-result was achieved, though, was it a poor choice (from a logical and/or rational standpoint)? Here's a less vague hypothetical scenario so you can understand what I mean.
Person A's wife is killed by a random street thug. The police do nothing, as they always have. Overwhelmed with grief and wanting to keep the streets safe (by lowering the crime rate), person A becomes a vigilante and kills every criminal he/she can find. Crime goes down, but everyone is scared. Once A is caught, the police are pressured into acting, and so the streets stay safe without further bloodshed.

Was A's action irrational or illogical? After all, their goal was achieved - the streets are safer. Of course, A was arrested, but the result was the same: safer streets. We could argue that this is really about the ends justifying the means, but that's a subjective issue.

So, to reiterate: Are "logical" and "rational" objective classifications of a person's actions? Why/Why not?

[Dystopia]

Enlighten me, you forgot to give your definition of "objective", what the hell are objective measurements of a person's actions?

When I had psychology classes back in highschool I learned that the brain makes decisions based on two variables - Emotions and rationality. Some decisions are largely influenced by emotions, others by rationality and some are in between. The fact a decision is based on rationality or emotions is not a guarantee that it's right or a better call.

If I decide to quit my million dollar dream job to live with my girlfriend it's an emotional decision but if I'm happy it's a good decision as well... This becomes a bit subjective, when I studied economics two years ago I learned that every decision is rational (cost/benefit) or irrational. I'm confused

[One Above All]

For example, when scientists look at evidence, they look at it objectively: the evidence is there, now they have to understand it. In this case, "objective" means that you're not projecting what you would have done, given your own values, morals, way of thinking, and so on, but rather what should have been done, regardless of one's values, morals, way of thinking, and so on, to achieve the goal.

The way I see it, "logical", when applied to something that is inherently subjective (a person's actions and desired outcome), is en par with "absolute morality", in that they're oxymora. People's desires are not universal, so the use of the terms "logical" and/or "rational" when classifying what someone did is illogical (see what I did there? Seriously though, see what I did there? In my view, the usage of these words is illogical, but, in your view, it's not. This is because we have different PoV's. If there were an objective PoV, we'd be able to say whether or not this was, in fact, [il]logical).