Your entire post starts with a suspect claim.
Reason's own standards of justification require that any claim meet objective criteria independent of the believing subject.
Says who? Is this a quote from the Handbook of the International Body of Official Reasoning Reasoners?* :D The term reason is not defined and does not demarcate practice in quite the crisp manner you believe it does. From WP:
Reasoning is associated with the acts of thinking and cognition, and involves the use of one's intellect. The field of logic studies the ways in which humans can use formal reasoning to produce logically valid arguments.2 Reasoning may be subdivided into forms of logical reasoning, such as deductive reasoning, inductive reasoning, and abductive reasoning. Aristotle drew a distinction between logical discursive reasoning (reason proper), and intuitive reasoning,3 in which the reasoning process through intuition—however valid—may tend toward the personal and the subjectively opaque.
What this means is that your belief about what reasoning is is itself a subjective and normative description, and it highlights how linguistic artifacts are often proxies for political and conventional ideas by way of nuance of definition. In fact, it goes to the heart of what the term objective really means, which is not to say that it really means this or that, but that what the term reason means itself is open to interpretation.
So, first, the claim "reason's own standards of justification require..." is itself questionable. What standard? Who is responsible for codifying standard? When was this standard codified? What are your sources about the standards? At best, we can argue that logicians have a general practice and corpus to which they refer. But let's for the sake of comity accept that there is a mythical fictional Average Logician that represents the best practices of modern logicians who study reason. Does that mean that the contemporary Average Logician believes fully in the objectivity of logic? Are there really Laws of Thought?
The laws of thought are fundamental axiomatic rules upon which rational discourse itself is often considered to be based. The formulation and clarification of such rules have a long tradition in the history of philosophy and logic. Generally they are taken as laws that guide and underlie everyone's thinking, thoughts, expressions, discussions, etc. However, such classical ideas are often questioned or rejected in more recent developments, such as intuitionistic logic, dialetheism and fuzzy logic.
The contemporary Average Logician is more of the mind, perhaps, that logic and reasoning are not universal and objective, but are particular and somewhat subjective. In fact, now is the good time to introduce the notion of intersubjectivity:
In the debate between cognitive individualism and cognitive universalism, some aspects of thinking are neither solely personal nor fully universal. Cognitive sociology proponents argue for intersubjectivity—an intermediate perspective of social cognition that provides a balanced view between personal and universal views of our social cognition. This approach suggests that, instead of being individual or universal thinkers, human beings subscribe to "thought communities"—communities of differing beliefs. Thought community examples include churches, professions, scientific beliefs, generations, nations, and political movements.
Thus, reasoning is not some magical, universal practice that floats about the universe that requires rigid and formal epistemological proof, but is rather a process that exists independent of its justificatory foundations. People have been reasoning long before the Pre-Socratics of Asia Minor and philosophy was born. What you believe to be true about reasoning, that it is objective and disembodied is a particular fiction that is popular, but not necessarily true. In fact, reasoning is an empirical fact in that it regardless of what you claim reasoning is, it occurs independent of you and is an aspect of the Wittgensteinian Sprachspiele.
We don't believe that there is a formal justification for claiming singing songs makes people feel emotions, nor is there one for claiming that feeding people keeps them from feeling hungry. Reasoning exists and is used in its most rudimentary forms without a justification for the claim that it helps produce more reliable truth about the world. Stone-age cultures reason, and little children reason. Non-logicians reason and monkeys reason. And none of that requires a thorough justification. The project of justification is a philosophical program for logicians and philosophers, and while it may add value to reasoning (I believe it does), isn't strictly speaking relevant to most people who reason.
So, what I am saying is that there is no monolithic practice called Reason. That is a trope of a narrative of a particular Weltanschauung that comes from the Enlightenment (the Age of Reason). It's a popular "cinematic trope". Laws of Thought. The Objectivity of Reason. Universal Engines of Rational Thinking. These are stories, not properly speaking facts.
* No such body exists. ;)
