How does ethical relativism differ from ethical egoism?

Ethical relativism and ethical egoism are distinct philosophical doctrines that differ in their fundamental approach to moral justification and the nature of moral truth.

Ethical Relativism
Ethical relativism is the doctrine that there are no objective or universal moral truths. Instead, it posits that what is considered morally right or wrong varies based on individual preferences or the social standards of a particular culture. Under this view, moral beliefs are seen as products of social arrangements or personal sentiments, meaning no single moral code can be proven superior to another.1

Ethical Egoism
In contrast, ethical egoism is a normative theory asserting that moral decision-making should be guided entirely by self-interest. Unlike relativism, which focuses on the source and variability of moral standards, egoism provides a specific criterion for action: the advancement of one's own interests. While universal ethical egoism suggests that everyone should act in their own self-interest, it remains a distinct normative claim rather than a denial of objective moral truth.23

In summary, while relativism denies the existence of universal moral standards, egoism proposes a specific, self-centered standard for how individuals ought to behave.12