How does moral realism differ from ethical relativism?

The primary distinction between moral realism and ethical relativism lies in their stance on the existence of objective moral truths.

Moral Realism
Moral realists maintain that moral statements—such as those regarding what is virtuous or permissible—are not merely expressions of subjective preference. Instead, they argue that these statements are objectively true or false based on their correspondence with moral facts, which exist independently of human opinion. For a moral realist, moral discourse is capable of recording genuine, mind-independent facts, similar to how scientific or geographic statements function.12

Ethical Relativism
In contrast, ethical relativism is the doctrine that there are no absolute or objective truths in ethics. Relativists argue that what is considered right or wrong varies between individuals or societies and is entirely dependent on social codes, cultural standards, or personal emotions. From this perspective, there is no culture-neutral standard to judge one society's moral code as superior to another's; moral beliefs are simply products of their specific traditions or perspectives.3

While moral realism asserts that there is a standard to which we can appeal to determine the truth of moral claims, ethical relativism denies the existence of such a standard, viewing morality as a social or psychological construct.13