Asking if ethics are subjective is about as dumb as asking if skepticism is self-refuting—because when you apply it consistently, it has to be false in order to be true. All irrationalism is false if it is true.

Non-Christians have no logical way to discuss ethics without self-refuting nonsense. The reason is because their start points and reasoning maneuvers inherently deny the laws of identity and contradiction right from the start. They lean on empirical observation, which is nothing more than a description of a momentary, transient past event. It’s an irrational “is” statement at best. But an ethic is not an “is”—it’s an “ought.” To start with an “is” in your premises and then conclude with an “ought” is to add brand-new information that was never in the premises. That’s the classic is-ought fallacy. You can’t derive a command from a pile of observations without committing a non-sequitur. Induction takes premises of “some” and manufactures the new information of “all” in the conclusion. This adds another layer of anti-logic when applied to ethics. To say “all” and “some” are the same thing at the same time is to deny the law of contradiction and face plant the law identity. Induction is anti-logic. It is not even pseudo-logic; it is opposed to logic.

Scientific experimentation compounds the problem because it is the fallacy of affirming the consequent; unfortunately, slapping a modus tollens (falsification) at the end of this anti-logic doesn’t make the anti-logic magically disappear. If Jack eats lots of bread, then his belly gets full. Jack’s belly got full. Therefore Jack ate lots of bread. Wrong. It could have been apples.  The premises do not provide a necessary connection between the terms, but the conclusion adds that connection anyway. That’s an undistributed middle term in classical logic. The added information is the connection between major and minor terms. To say there is not a necessary connection and there is a necessary connection is a contradiction. Empiricism and science use induction over and over, so they systematically deny the laws of logic. To affirm that they produce knowledge is to kill logic while still using it.

Science does not produce knowledge. It is delusion and superstition. Picture a guy staring at a thermometer and declaring, “See? Heat causes sweating—therefore morality!” Yeah, good luck with that one.

The claim that ethics are subjective is itself subjective. If the subjective standard is applied constantly, it self-refutes. Because I know by subjectivity that ethics are subjective, it means I don’t know if they are subjective. Because I affirm ethics are subjective as a subjective statement, it means it is not dogmatic and so it is illogical to apply it in any public or dogmatic way. Because I know ethics are subjective, subjectively, it leads to skepticism, but skepticism denies the laws of logic.

Ethics aren’t observed. They are not material. Ethics is not sensed, smelled, or heard. It is incorporeal and intellectual.

Ethics is God’s commands. It is a violation of His commands and His definition of good and evil. Good and evil are not floating human ideas or personal preferences. They are God’s intellectual definitions, sovereignly revealed in Scripture. God defines what is good because He is good, and evil is anything that rebels against that definition. Sin is lawlessness—everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness (1 John 3:4). This is not something sensed with the body or invented by the mind; it is an objective intellectual declaration from first principle of God’s revelation. His Word alone gives the necessary connection to reality, so ethics become clear, binding, and non-contradictory.

Non-Christians have no rational way to define good and evil because their starting point is human speculation and empiricism. Without God’s revelation they are left with subjective opinions, unjustified majority or minority vote, or personal preference, none of which can be rationally grounded without begging the question or contradicting the laws of logic. They cannot produce an “ought” at all. Their empiricism gives only transient “is” statements and then pretends those descriptions somehow generate commands. That is impossible deductively.

The very preconditions of intelligibility and meaning expose the bankruptcy of their position. You cannot observe or learn time, space, difference, identity, the laws of contradiction, or causality. You must already possess them to make sense of anything you observe. Try learning the law of contradiction by staring at a rock—it doesn’t happen. These are not empirical data points; they are the intellectual framework you bring to the data.

The same is true of ethics. The idea of a command is not something you can observe. No amount of watching another person yell at someone and point at them can give you the information of a command without violating the laws of logic and committing non-sequiturs and violating categories. You already have to know what a command is before you can interpret the yelling as authoritative. Likewise, the idea of good and evil is something you cannot observe to get the information about what is good and evil. It is something you must already have to apply to understand what you are observing. Ethics is what you apply to what you observe to make sense of it; it is not observed.

Sometimes I hear non-Christians say Christians’ ethics are subjective just as their ethics are subjective; however, they say that through the lens of their own empiricism.

First, picture a non-Christian saying, “Hey, Christian ethics are just as subjective as mine—everyone’s got their own version!” Sounds fair on the surface, right? But watch what happens when you stick to their starting point. They’re already locked into “everything is subjective because that’s how I see the world.” So when they slap that label on your ethics, they’re not dropping some neutral fact bomb. They’re just sharing another opinion.

Their own starting point leads them to says ethics are subjective. They say our ethics are subjective; however, to say this subjectively means it is logically impossible for them or me to have the knowledge that the Christian ethics are subjective. To say I have knowledge that Christian ethics are subjective is not subjective but objective, which denies the claim. To consistently apply the principle, it must be false in order to be true.

To claim “I know Christian ethics are subjective” would mean they’ve suddenly got objective knowledge about something outside their own feelings. But that breaks their own rule! It’s like saying, “I subjectively know that nothing can be known for sure.” The claim has to be false to even try to be true. It self-destructs faster than a sandcastle at high tide. From their lens alone, they can’t logically have the knowledge to critique yours without cheating. Boom—law of contradiction doing its thing, just like Jesus exposed in Mark 12 when He showed the Sadducees their view couldn’t stand next to God’s own words.

Beyond that nonsense there is the internal critique issue.

They try to play fair and say, “Let’s judge Christianity by its own rules.” Sounds respectful… until you look closer. Deductively, starting from God’s revelation as the rock-solid first principle (Scripture as axiom, no additions needed), there’s zero inconsistency in Christian ethics. Jesus is the Logos—logic and reason in the flesh—so commands flow straight from God’s mind. Good and evil aren’t up for debate; they’re defined by the sovereign God who is good and decides what He wants for His own purposes. Paul nails the law of identity too: grace is grace, law is law—no fuzzy blending. On Christianity’s own terms, ethics stay objective, clear, and non-contradictory. No wobbles.

It is not a true internal critique of the Christian worldview. It becomes subjective only when they mix their empiricism with the Christian worldview—then obviously it looks subjective because they have smuggled their defective starting point into our system.  But that is something we already know. We already knew the two starting points are incompatible! All they have done is shown that their worldview is incompatible with ours, but we already knew that. That is how inconsistent they are in critiquing other people’s positions.

The only escape is to agree with God’s definitions. Submit to His sovereign commands revealed in Scripture. When you do, ethics are no longer a mystery—they are the clear, objective foundation for all of life