I would argue that many animals have the ability to reason.. It's an egotistical trait of humans to think they actually stand apart from animals, that we are something "more" than animals.. when in reality, we are just animals.

According to Piaget, people don’t gain the capacity for abstract thought (Formal Operational Stage Thinking) until eleven years of age. Does that mean children aren’t human?

yes, people who (not THAT, WHO!) don't reason are humans. people in a coma don't reason and are human. people who are developmentally challenged may not reason but are human; hitler didn't think so and put many of them to death. and by the way, the ability to reason is NOT the defining characteristic of a human. crows reason, as do chimpanzees and other primates, and i won't go down the long list of animals that reason but octopusses do quite well at problem-solving, thank you. you may consider whomever you want however you want, but what makes a human human isn't someone's decision about what is his/her defining characteristic. it's all in the dna.

g

Trying to reason with a human that is incapable of thinking is like doing cpr on a corpse.
Hence, a human but dead.

All humans reason. But I do find it odd that when it comes to religion most people put all that rational thinking aside in favor of faith - which is illogical.

Yes, we call them republicans.

Are you think of the don in the White House when you talk about humans incapable of reasoning?

Well, like it or not, we ARE all members of the species of Homo Sapiens, even those who are dull, etc, etc.
However, having said that, TRYING to get a Faithfool to see or use reasoning is like taking a horse to water and making it drink, it IS nigh nearly impossible task.

There is no reason for humans.

If we are to use the definition you use then no. A person that does not reason is of course not human by definition. I don’t think there are any people that do not use reason other than maybe the severely handicapped though.

What’s more likely is that a person has different reasoning than another person. What we’ve also seen, time and time again, is people dehumanizing others so that terrible acts can be done upon them. I don’t want any part of that. We are all human.

Does that mean we can eat them?

What do you propose is reason and what is not reason.

Does drinking in excess identify an inability to reason?

That’s a pretty illogical conclusion.
Also reasoning is not the defining characteristic for humans. There is plenty of evidence that animals have basic reasoning abilities.

Consciousness is the defining difference in my opinion. Although lack of consciousness can’t be proven.
Art and empathy would also be human rather than animal.

Your definition of what it is to be "human" does not work. Some animals, birds, apparently reason. Therefore, either animals (some) reason also, or they are really human.
Furthermore, what is often overlooked is that just as in humans there is a wide range of intelligence. I have observed that in horses (some are just plain stupid, others will exhibit behaviors that are apparently intelligent), and geese. I had a particular gander that learned on his own to shake apples from low-hanging tree branches, whereas all the others in his flock, over several generations never learned how to do it even when watching him do it.

Also, as I have posted in the past, when it comes to humans, it is not logical to define the intelligence of humans from the extremes. The average of human intelligence would seem to be the logical measure. The only problem with that is, the "average" human I.Q. is only 100 points...about as smart as a box of rocks. So when "humans" went to the moon, it was the exceptionally intelligent humans that made it possible...the "average" I.Q. folks were mopping the floors at night. In short, by gaging human intelligence by the mathematical average...human beings are just not all that smart.

I would disagree that is the defining characteristic.

You didn't define "reason". Most of us don't do it very well, and the few who can do it well can't do it well all the time, in every context.

Thus, since all people fail at reasoning well in specific instances quite often, no person would be human.

Many humans abdicate their reasoning, which they possess, in favor of appealing to authority which requires no effort on their part.

Of course they are human. Babies cannot yet reason and people with dementia have lost the ability to reason, yet they are still human. The reason centers of the brain don't even fully develop until a human is in their early to mid twenties, and we are human before that age.

But humans ARE animals, we are mammals. We may be higher order animals aka our ability to reflect or reason as you say, but that does not make us any less animals. This question would disqualify mentally disabled, (formerly "retarded" ) from being humans, since they cannot reason and often need caregivers. In that sense, the question, as posed, comes across as ableist. Just sayin'

The discussion of the actual defining characteristics of humanity aside, I would caution anyone from attempting to define that a certain group of people should no longer be considered human. Ideas matter. History has shown that genocides begin with these ideas.

They're human, but slightly less evolved. They're missing a gene or something. Because I don't know how you can ignore so much evidence to the contrary.

Humans are not the only animals that use reasoning. Birds, monkeys, apes and lots of other animals use reasoning. A human is still a human even if it lacks reasoning.

There are various laboratory blind tests going on in the computer world, particularly do with AI where a human operator is asked to judge whether at the other end of their communication link there is a Human or a programmed computer. Subjecting a person who cannot reason to these series of tests instead of the computer on test might shake them into thinking that they are just a machine and change their ways. It would certainly bar them from many public service jobs.
Seriously though I have not found any literature that suggests how we can help people to reason. Leading people through lots of it would not necessarily work

That's what it should mean but most of them don't know how to reason. For examples of this try watching The Atheist experience on Sundays in You Tube.

There is always the possibility that someone would consider someone as non reasonable only because they don't think/feel alike. From that angle, things may/could be the other way around. Is now the first person not human because of being gulty of the same thing they complain about? See the mirror effect here? The answer for both sides is a sound no. Being human has nothing to do with the fact that we all have complex reasons for being the way we are.