It is not the title that matters, but rather what people who subscribe to the title do: think. Which is to point out that I am a person who thinks, quite a bit. As for formal education and application, I have that too; but these things are not important. Even a person without a degree can be a philosopher: engineers and carpenters, tailors and lawyers.
While being a philosopher does not indicate what someone's moral temperament may be, it does indicate that the person has quite likely put considerable thought into the nature of morality and his own personal beliefs. It was an attempt to push past petty preconceptions about what I have said in hope that people would perhaps evaluate what I have said with a bit more thought.
Moral relativism, hmmm... I have not advocated that position here, nor absolutism or any such thing in between. I have simply said it was difficult to locate a true north. Now disagree with whatever morals I may purport, but this truth is something that all should agree on. Morality and ethics is a very tricky topic that becomes sticky very quickly. It was to attack the post I had to which I replied to point out that what he deems as disgusting is perhaps not so.
Most curious, however, is that you call out moral relativism, and then continue to push the same assertion as the post above: that what the girl did was unequivocally wrong. And you have built yourself a nice little trap in doing so, because you seem to support it with the assumption that drugging another human being against their will is in and of itself a wrong action. Now, should you venture just a bit into the ocean of philosophy, if only to wet your feet, I'm sure you'll find this sort of claim runs into all sorts of snafus. The question of means to an end rears its head once again.
I think the relationship of the parent and child are of high, if not utmost, significance.