Daniel Khaneman and Amos Tversky, "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk," Econometrica, vol. 47, no. 2 (1979): 263–291.

In the 1970s, two psychologists confirmed that humans are not rational creatures. Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky discovered "cognitive biases," showing that that humans systematically make choices that defy clear logic. Humans, unlike artificial intelligence, are genetically programmed to be prone to bouts of irrationality. According to Kant, this may be a flaw within human nature which prevents us from achieving total efficiency, however, recent studies within psychology have shown that humans require acts of irrationality and that always being rational can in fact be detrimental. One may then argue that irrationality is not a human flaw but rather a safety mechanism that serves as an auxiliary aid in our purpose in life.

As such, when our actions require justification, does reasonable equate to rational?

No. 

Hence, when we reason, we should not try to solely quantitate nor qualitatively justify based on pure logic alone. We must take into account the "humane" aspect of our choices and consequences, the irrational aspects that divide us from AI.

----------

Edit: 23rd Mar 2021

Being completely rational is like the music Kōsei Arima plays before opening up to Kaori Miyazono. There is nothing wrong the music - in fact, it is flawless - but it has no feeling.

Reference: Shigatsu wa Kimi no Uso

The government should not have the right to coerce an individual, however, an individual does not have the right to revolt against the government without a humane reason.

If an individual is considered a definite threat – physically a terrorist and not feared as a maleurous (see Dragonfable) agent of change – then the government has the right to hold them on transparent trial yet has no right to use violence, torture or coerce the individual in any way. If an individual believes the government is in need of reform, the individual has the right to hold the government under transparent trial, provided that there is a humane reason.

A "humane reason" is the variable factor and must be pure and not decided through tyranny of the majority and not given imperviable protection in favour of minority rights either. Humane reason should not conform but stand as an ethical principle. It should not be subject to bureaucratic processes and should be considered with the utmost importance. 

----------

Edit: 12th Apr 2021

The "Straw Vulcan" argument is that rationality never fails and only appears to fail due to it being false rationality. 

There is ostensibly two forms of rationality:

1. The method of obtaining an accurate view of reality. (Epistemic Rationality) — Learning new things, updating your beliefs based on the evidence, being as accurate as possible, being as close to what is true as possible, etc.

2. The method of achieving your goals. (Instrumental Rationality) — Whatever your goals are, be them selfish or altruistic, there are better and worse ways to achieve them, and instrumental rationality helps you figure this out.

Reference: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/z9hfbWhRrY2Pwwrgi/summary-of-the-straw-vulcan

It would therefore appear that rationality and emotions are not diametrically opposite; the Straw Vulcan and emotions are dichotomic though. Pure rationality therefore actually encompasses emotions as well as intuition. 

On that note, faith is not in contradiction with rationalism. It is perfectly rational to have faith.

The problem, however, is that humans are not completely rational beings and it is detrimental to be completely rational anyway. Therefore, it would make sense that it is rational to be irrational or is it?

----------

Conclusion (so far)

1. Being rational means having humane reason (accurate circa 2021. I.e. Kant's definition of rationality does not apply).

2. If you believe you are being rational yet result in an unfavourable outcome, rationality is not bad - you are just bad at rationality.