or, you know, it could be a radical conservative who doesn't agree with his liberal student's morals. Why is it that only a leftist can be forcing morals on others?

my experience would say the complete opposite. i know someone whose teacher, a christian conservative, failed them for writing a paper criticizing christianity's impact on society. the teacher lied saying that the paper was never turned in. then laughed to the writers face about it.

25 from what I have seen more college professors are left wing. but I agree it could come from either side.

True. my teacher right now told us that AIDS was invented in a laboratory by Christians who were afraid of black people. I said "well I guess it worked since no Christians have AIDS, only black people!" and she's been up my ass ever since. She is a crazy racist left-wing Black Panther who thinks that all white people should burn. College professors can be downright INSANE! And they're teaching the youth of our nation...

If the students moral views were not so socially unacceptable wouldn't it then be unethical to give him a 'D' for having different values? Just because this professor holds a degree doesn't change the fact that the professor's behavior may have also been unethical. If the student really did think that rape is acceptable, or that it's ok to curb-stomp elderly relatives then of course he can't expect to make a good grade;however, I don't think that's very probable. We humans may be more reckless in our youth, but we do have a clear understanding of what is acceptable and unacceptable in our society. Since the OP made it to college it's also safe to assume that he, like the average college student, possesses above average intelligence in comparison to others from his general area.

Short and simple, your writing intimidates me from my iPhone.

Yay for super long comments.

I think many people see ethical behaviour as a linear thing, as if a decision A is more ethical than decision B. As if points for ethical behaviour would be dished out and the person with the most points is the most ethical one. But this is clearly not the case with ethics. The subject borders closely to philosophy, and for sure there is no clear answer to many given settings. Take the famous Star Trek example: Is it really better to have a small number of people die (Spock) in order to save more people (the crew of the Enterprise, which would blow up otherwise)? If it seems like that in this simplified example, is this still valid in all other possible situations and can be made a moral rule? (It can not, see Germany and the Jews in the 3rd Reich.) So, can there ever be a measuring of ethical values? I am pretty sure that's very difficult, since there's not ever a fixed position to build up from. Wouldn't the end of human existence be better for planet Earth? If so, all moral discussion that's based on a living human society would already be presumptuous. I guess discussing ethics evolves into an infinity loop quite quickly if it is done by people with only half an understanding of the concept - like me and most others here. I personally think that there's about a 3rd of a chance that the professor decided to use his upper hand because of reasons we will never know and a 3rd of a chance that he discovered flawed arguments in the test and a 3rd of a chance that the poster really has a strange position which he didn't convey logically coherent enough. I guess you're right, there seems to be no real security about if anyone was right at all. On the other hand, if this were law school, anything seems to be possible as long as the argument is convincing... :-)

I am sorry if I didn't find the right words or if my syntax is jolting . English is not my native language.

TL;DR MOTHERFUCKERS

Nice assumption.

Liberal professors do that very thing constantly, so the assumption is not unfair.

First a rash assumption, and then a ridiculous generalization. You're on fire. Sorry if I post more than once.

to assume makes an ass out of you and me. i think thats the saying. anyways, my personal experience says that conservatives do this more.

Indeed. Pull your head out of Glen Beck's sack and realize that most left-wing people actually think before they speak! Unlike SOMEONE...

It's bone headed to assume that the professor is liberal, or that being liberal is somehow bad. There are bad people and good people within the wide variety of philosophies. You show yourself as being close minded and ignorant in condemning someone without any real argument. Labeling someone is not making a logical argument.

Ah but RedPill, politics, religion and all philosophical debates in the US have turned into basically supporting a football team rather than rational thought. If you're not with us, you're against us. It's not necessary for a Packers fan to analyse the reason that someone else might support the Vikings, they just know deep in their heart they're Favre-loving scum (despite the fact that five minutes ago, they themselves were Favre-loving patriots). The same goes for US domestic politics. Labels are all that is needed. PS - before I find myself barred from the Midwest, that was just an example. The reader can choose their own personal prejudices.

Finally an opinion I agree with. I had a flashback to legal ethics and you would definitely fail if your moral values were wrong. That is pretty much the definition of ethics. I imagine medical ethics are much the same. If you are being taught the Hippocratic oath but you feel old people should be an exception, the professor would be remiss if he did not advise you about your lack of morals. Same for business ethics. I'm not sure what type of ethics class this was but it may well be the instructor's job to ensure your moral values are in line with industry practices and standards.

But isn't the class about teaching ethics? Unless he's wrong about knowing the material, I would question why the professor gave him a bad grade and didn't do a good job of explaining why?

It's an ethics class. Of course the morals matter.

Gee. If only there was a button for that