"Relativism, roughly put, is the view that truth and falsity, right and wrong, standards of reasoning, and procedures of justification are products of differing conventions and frameworks of assessment and that their authority is confined to the context giving rise to them."
That sounds fair enough. Times differ, different rules, it makes little sense condemning a past time because it differed from the present, as it's not only pointless but bound to encourage future folk to do the same to you. Conversely it makes just as little sense to assume the views of the past are right and today's understanding is wrong. Views need debating and common sense applied at all times.
But it does suggest that what is right and wrong for a community may overlap with the possibility of a universal definition of right and wrong. I suspect the universal one doesn't actually exist save as a developing communally agreed version. After all, where would it come from ? One would end up conjecturing deities like that.
Worth considering whether this is only about two states. Maybe something can be right and wrong at the same time, or neither right nor wrong at the same time.