Logic is not subjective.

Logical speech as judged by one could be judged illogical by another.

The two are incredibly different.

Logical speech or writing takes hypotheses, or axioms, or assumptions, and uses logic to manipulate these assumptions or premisses to arrive at conclusions.

There are two ways of arriving at conclusions: the wrong way and the right way.

The wrong way may include one or both of these things: the assumption was false, or the logic used was not proper.

The right way uses the true assumptions and proper logic.

To illustrate:

Bagelboy is 1345546 feet tall. Therefore Bagelboy is taller than the Eiffel Tower.

Is the conclusion right? No it isn't. The logic involved is proper; but the initial assumption is wrong (Bagelboy is under 9 feet tall).

Bagelboy is between 2 inches and 9 feet tall. Therefore Bagelboy is taller than the Eiffel tower.

Is the conclusion right? No, it isn't. The assumption may be true, but the logic is wrong.

Bagelboy is betwen two inches and 9 feet tall. Therefore Bagelboy is shorter than the Eiffel tower.

Here, the logic is proper, the assumption is true, and the conclusion is right.

Bagelboy is 63937859 feet tall. Therefore Bagelboy is shorter than the Eiffel tower.

Here, the assumption is wrong, the logic is improper, and the conclusion is right, but only by outside knowledge, not because the argument is set up right.

The logic used in the above examples is "if A is X feet tall, and B is Y feet tall, then A is taller than B only if X is a larger number than Y. X and Y can only be positive numbers." There is nothing subjective about this.

Of course you can present an argument NOW to me where the formal logic is subjective. If you are successful, I'll withdraw the statement I have made.

-- Updated 2017 March 15th, 10:33 pm to add the following --

""" but we can construct different logics with different rules. """

However, that would not work with mathematics with its present set of axioms, and it would not work with reality, as we know it.

Sure, make up some different rules, create a different set of logic rules, but as long as you rely on arguments consistently using the same set of rules, the rules are objective. (You said so yourself.)

Using your different logical rules are not subjective, either. USING. Not establishing. I am talking about USING.

You can't get away from objectivity other than with changing the rules.

But nobody has on this forum changed the rules. The violators simply ignore the current set of rules of logic, or don't know how to use them.

-- Updated 2017 March 15th, 10:37 pm to add the following --

Nobody has on this forum changed the rules. The violators simply ignore the current set of rules of logic, or don't know how to use them.

This practice of allowing philosophers to use inappropriate logic must be stopped.

What are we?? Are we philosophers, or are we... not philosophers. The bread-and-butter of philosophy is using logic to argue the validity of a conclusion from a set of premisses.