If you are a moral relativist, it can mean certain things. One thing is relativists do have values, they just are aware of the fact those values may be different in different circumstances. With such a belief they believe in tolerance. This does not mean, however, that there is a particular instance of people going so far against the observers belief that the tolerance wears off. For instance if someone were to beat their child, a relativist would most likely decide it is time to take action. So while relativism may permit anything, any particular person's relativism may not. If that person's relativism holds no values, then it devolves into nihilism.
Objective morality is the idea that a certain system of ethics or set of moral judgments is not just true according to a person's subjective opinion, but factually true. Proponents of this theory would argue that a statement like "Murder is wrong" can be as objectively true as "1 + 1 = 2." Most of the time, the alleged source is God, or the Kantian Categorical Imperative; arguably, no objective source of morality has ever been confirmed, nor have any a priori proofs been offered to the effect that morality is anything other than subjective.
The moral principles that people claim to be "objective" usually coincide very well with what they feel subjectively to be true. When pressed to provide justification, the person in question will usually just fail to understand that morality might not be objective, and might consequently grow increasingly doubtful or hysterical as the subjective bases of their arguments are progressively revealed, as has been observed in recent times.
Most of the objective morals promoted today in the West are grounded in Christianity. Among Christians, it follows from the ideas of inherent human sinfulness and original sin that one's subjective moral instincts must be categorically classed as evil. Thus, say the Christians, one needs an external, objective source for morality. And — speak of the devil — there is such an external, objective source to be found at a nonspecific location in the sky, sitting on a throne.
The Catholic Church originally admitted several sources for such morality, including human reason; but at the Protestant Reformation, when the principle of "total depravity" was promulgated to an unprecedented degree, human reason became very dodgy and the Bible became the only source that was not suspect. Hence, we see creationists arguing that there are no meaningful morals if Genesis 1 is not true to the letter.
People sometimes say relativism means we must be tolerant or we must let other cultures have their ways. I've even seen relativism used to defend slavery and female genital mutilation.
But if relativism is true then forcing your moral beliefs on others isn't objectively right or wrong, it's just another thing that is as relative as anything else.
Therefore relativism doesn't actually mean anything. It's impossible to be acting against relativism, because relativism permits everything including taking action so as to not permit everything.
Rational beings, moral philosophies, independent beliefs, quality of life, the human condition, autonomy, and reason are all things that are given value in various philosophies, some of which are relativist.
There is almost never a justification for these values, and even if there were, relativism would hold that it is totally subjective, and completely dependent on perspective.
To Conclude: We cannot derive an ought from Moral Relativism because morality itself is a subjective value.