I suppose what I was trying to ask is whether our capacity to reason is unique to humans/animals? I admit its not a particularly good question.

What I wanted to explore are the consequences of reason being as morally baseless as relativist moral theories like emotivism.

It seems to me that in this day and age where so much rides on our judicial systems- case and point the US court currently blocking Trump's executive orders- that justice and morality must be grounded in something that exists as a thing in-itself in order for it to be able to maintain the 'moral high ground' in situations like the travel ban in the US. I believe that society sees this objectively true thing to be reason or rationality. I say this because our courts are lorded for their neutrality, with emphasis on cold hard facts rather than what 'feels' like the right thing to do.

However, I do not believe reason exists as a thing in-itself outside of human existence and therefore, it has no 'superior' objective status over moral theories such as emotivism, for example. Our capacity to reason is affected by our natural history, beliefs, situations etc. and is never neutral. Consequently it seems to me that reason is open to the same criticisms as relativist moral theories and the emphasis Trump has begun placing on the importance of looking out for your individual-self is not necessarily any less morally commendable as doing the 'rational thing'.

Would love to hear your thoughts on this

I agree with you jkop, I have since re-imagined my question, as I realised I was asking the wrong thing.
What I really want to ask is whether reason can exist as an objective thing in the universe? That is to say that when entities use their capacity for reason are they able to reason apart from their personal natural history in an objective manner? Is reason ever 'neutral' ?