1. The student is attempting to claim an ought from an is, which is so patently absurd that even David Hume recognized it. By saying that someone ought to be tolerant, based on moral relativism, there is no good reason to suppose that intolerance is wrong. This is merely personal preference, and one could argue quite convincingly, sophistry. Also, by claiming that it is wrong to be intolerant, the student is tacitly, though not directly, accepting the idea that an absolute morality does indeed exist. Indeed, the case for moral relativism crumbles when a relativist tries to make moral judgements. He is denying that an absolute moral law exists! More accurately, he is stating what he would rather be the case, which is not absolute at all. It is a personal preference! Again, to go back to the David Hume argument, it does not logically follow that just because someone thinks intolerance is wrong that people ought to be tolerant. You cannot coherently claim that someone ought to be something from what is. It simply does not work.2. The student could say nothing without inferring the existence of a moral law. The consistent moral relativist has to accept individual morality, whether or not he likes it or not. To take it to its logical conclusion, yes, the moral relativist is forced to conclude that whatever society (or some society) believes is right is necessarily so. But this is incoherent. For example, if a society were to believe it right to torture small children, it would still be wrong. This is not a personal preference, an absolute moral law truly exists! There are only two logically consistent positions for the moral relativist- total relativism, in which he/she cannot judge anyone for his actions, or nihilism, where morality just doesnt matter at all.