How does ethical relativism differ from the idea that circumstances affect whether an action is right or wrong?

It is a common misconception that ethical relativism is simply the recognition that circumstances influence moral decisions. In reality, ethical relativism and the role of circumstances are distinct concepts in ethics.1

Ethical relativism is the radical doctrine that there are no objective, universal moral truths. It posits that moral judgments are valid only relative to a specific society’s customs or an individual’s preferences, meaning no moral principle can be justified as universally binding.1

In contrast, the idea that circumstances affect whether an action is right or wrong is an uncontroversial observation accepted by both absolutists and relativists. For example, whether entering a house is permissible depends on whether one is the owner, a guest, or a burglar. This does not imply that morality is subjective; rather, it acknowledges that the application of universal moral principles—such as respect for property—must account for the specific context of a situation.1

Unlike relativism, which denies the existence of objective standards, frameworks like situation ethics seek to navigate the complexities of life by applying normative guidelines, such as acting in the most loving way, to unique circumstances.2