I don’t think we’re arguing over strawmen. You seem to think one should not mention it if they get the wrong drink order, regardless of how politely they bring it up. I think it’s ok to do so, provided it’s done politely. I’m not trying to argue that point, mostly just offering my opinion. I’m not suggesting the customer is always right, just that it’s possible for staff to be wrong and it’s not improper to ask them to fix a mistake. I understand that in the OP the guy is wrong, but that doesn’t mean everyone should just take what they are given and be happy with it regardless.

I’m may be a dirty commie, but I think capitalism has really messed up the way people perceive people on the other side of exchanges. Baristas are often overworked and underpaid but that’s not the fault of the customers who are often also overworked and underpaid. If someone decides to spend some of their limited resources on a treat for themselves then I think it’s ok that they make sure to get the thing they asked and paid for. I am personally boycotting a lot of big brands, but I’m sure local places are also taking advantage of their workers, there’s just no big campaign against them. There’s no ethical consumption under capitalism etc etc, but we all participate in the economy and should care about how others are treated. If I do something wrong I want to fix it because I care about you and your experience. What you want matters to me and you should get it. You should also care if that affects me and my day and should try to minimize the stress by being polite and understanding. That’s my overall thought process.

I mostly agree, and personally would never send food back, but I think it’s fine to mention something if you think you were served the wrong thing. Coffee or otherwise, you might have someone else’s order or the barista might have made a genuine mistake. Maybe they put the order in wrong and you were charged for something more expensive that you didn’t order etc etc. It’s never acceptable to be rude to anyone including waitstaff, but I think a lot of social anxiety is wrapped up in this idea that you’re somehow the problem if you mention that you didn’t get what you ordered and paid for. The idea that you have to buck up because it’s not the end of the world is bad in my opinion.

I put fun little Easter eggs like that in my logging and some debugging but I can admit it’s cringe. If I had someone speak to me like that I wouldn’t hate it but I’d question their earnestness.

I think partially the assumption is that it’s an in and out mission. Much harder to change someone’s life for the better in the course of a day than be guaranteed to stop their part in evils to come. If you told me I had one day to convince Hitler to not do the holocaust or just kill him, I don’t think I’d bet millions of lives on my skills of persuasion. Also, and this may be a bit doomer of me, but at a certain point people may never take to rehabilitation. I don’t know that Stephen miller could ever change the person he is. I’m not saying we shouldn’t try, but again, I wouldn’t be millions of lives on it.

Your beliefs seem to align with what the students are saying and generally with moral realism.

You just said “I think that there are parts of morality that really are culturally relative and subjective, and parts that aren’t.” so you can view some morality as subjective and some as necessarily universal. That is what most people default to and what you seem to saying is wrong with the students. You state they aren’t consistent, but you’re also not consistent. Sometimes subjectivity is right sometimes it’s not. I’m not seeing a distinction, so please elaborate on it if I’m missing it.

I just commented elsewhere in this thread, but isn’t moral realism a thing for this exact situation? Is his post not a self report on his inability to identify a moral framework that fits his students worldview, or at least to explain the harm that arises if one has a self contradictory worldview and help them realize that and potentially arrive at a more consistent view? Seems like this comment section is filled with a lot of people that understand their moral framework more than this professor, but obviously are not in the field. Can you please elaborate on the issues here? Like I think abortions are fine, but I understand that others think it’s murder. I don’t think they’re bad people for that, but I understand if they think I’m a bad person for my views. How we deal with it on a societal level is obviously even more complicated. I don’t see how there’s a problem there.

It seems like ALL is doing a lot of heavy lifting in your comment. Do they really believe ALL morality is relative and are also always insanely judgy if things contradict their beliefs?