Q:) What makes human material a person?

This post's title was a question I had on my recent exam in ethics class. I received an F for my response. I don't think it was deserving of such a grade. I'll let you be the judge. This was my answer:

A:)When determining what qualifies human material as a person, I think a logical place to begin is by considering what makes human material different from all other materials.

From what our human minds can perceive, it appears that humans are the only species that possess the ability to reason, to wonder, and to aspire. Humans are the only species to have such a vast vocabulary, such complex grammar, and the ability to have deep and meaningful conversations about topics, such as their origin and their destiny. Humans are the only creatures to establish religions, have a refined aesthetic sense, and a vivid imagination.

Although it cannot be proven that these qualities are exclusive to the human species, it can be confidently assumed, based on simple observation and scientific studies dating as far back as humans can account. Every influential philosopher has asserted or assumed that the human species' ability to reason does, in some regard, set it above all others. Furthermore, this ability to reason is often the element claimed to give the human species its personhood.

It should be noted that nothing I have written thus far about human values is based on any religious belief; rather, I have assumed no creator. However, when examining what makes human material a person, you will find yourself in quite a pickle if you try to dig too deep into the question without attributing some sort of creator to the human species. Let me explain.

If a human, whether because of old age or mental retardation, loses or does not possess the traits I described earlier as being exclusive to the human species, you must then explain why—or why not—that human is a person. If they cannot reason, cannot communicate in any meaningful way and/or have no ability to imagine or wonder, then are they still considered as being a person? Unless one ascribes a creator to the human species, a creator who places within each human an intrinsic value, then you are going to experience quite some difficulty making a case for why a mentally retarded paraplegic is indeed a person. Of course, it is possible that such an individual is not a person, and such an assumption might make sense. However, if you do believe that a mentally retarded paraplegic, who is in no other way discernable from an animal by way of intellect or physical capabilities, is still a person, then you must believe that humans have an intrinsic value that transcends any detectable trait or quality. It follows that one must believe that humans are endowed by a creator with an inherent value, and this is what qualifies human material as a person.