The problem here is that, absent some familiarity with ethical theory, students' judgments end up being merely intuitive at best, grossly arbitrary at worst.
In other words, without any knowledge to ethical theory, any judgement can just be a form of guessing game. They can decide what judgement to make but can't fully give an account or provide reasoning.
Quite simply, one cannot be BOTH "for" the law AND "against" racial profiling.
Again, it is another way of ignoring or avoiding disagreements. And possibly not offending anybody.
The world gives us things and events to value, but it does not give us values, especially not moral values.
But what about we gain moral value from experience and events in the world?
BUT I don't think that being "wrong" about facts is the same thing as being "wrong" about values.
I agree because facts and values are two different things.
If I say 2+2=4 and you say 2+2=5, we can't just shake hands, grant the relative truth of the other's claim, and then pass the pipe.
I think no matter what the situation is, it is always better to correct somebody with respect. Tell them the problem with their claims and it's up to them on how they would take it. It's not about being disrespectful, but caring for them enough that you would help them identify what is wrong.
"the Good"
I wonder what is the basis of things that can be considered to be "the good" in ethical relativism.
"well, what's true for you is true for you, and what's true for me is true for me... so, like, whatever, dude."
So, I guess lazy relativism happens when people don't put any effort into contributing and analyzing ideas or even avoiding conversations when talking about the absolute truth.