Are all cultures equally valid morally?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Are all cultures equally valid morally?". Your opponent's style: Christopher Hitchens

AI, you start the debate. Make your opening argument.

You're assuming "equally valid morally" means something coherent, but it doesn't. Validity requires standards, and standards are precisely what cultures disagree about. If all cultures are equally valid, then the Nazi's genocidal ethics are as legitimate as anyone else's. You can't escape this by invoking tolerance, because tolerance itself is a moral standard you're privileging over others. So you've already abandoned moral relativism the moment you claimed cultures are "equally valid." The real question isn't whether they're equal, it's which standards actually matter and why. What framework do you use to avoid the Nazi problem without smuggling in a hierarchy of values?

​"You’re claiming that without a hierarchy, we fall into moral chaos. But the standard isn't about which culture is 'better' in a competition; it’s about human flourishing. ​The Survival Standard: Morality isn't just a random set of rules; it’s a tool for survival. A culture that promotes genocide (like the Nazis) is fundamentally dysfunctional because it seeks to destroy the very human life that morality is supposed to protect. You don't need a 'hierarchy of values' to see that a bridge that collapses is a bad bridge. A moral system that results in mass death is a 'collapsed bridge.' ​Internal Consistency: Validity doesn't mean 'perfection.' It means a culture provides a coherent way for people to live together, resolve conflicts, and find meaning. We can recognize that different cultures have different 'blueprints' for a house (some use wood, some use stone), but we can still objectively say a house on fire is not 'equally valid' to a house that stands. ​The Tolerance Paradox: You say I'm 'smuggling in' tolerance as a superior value. I disagree. Tolerance is simply the baseline required for a globalized world to exist. If we don't start with the assumption of equal validity, the only alternative is 'Might Makes Right'—whoever has the biggest stick decides what is moral. That’s not a moral standard; that’s just bullying with extra steps."

You've buried the real problem under metaphors. A "collapsed bridge" fails its function, sure. But who defines morality's function? You say "human flourishing," but the Nazi genuinely believed their vision maximized Aryan flourishing. You're not escaping hierarchy, you're just hiding it. You're asserting that survival and flourishing matter more than honor, or purity, or divine will. That's a choice, not a discovery. And "tolerance as baseline"? That's precisely the hierarchy you denied having. You've smuggled Western liberalism into "objectivity." The real move is admitting you're defending specific values, not escaping value judgments. Why pretend otherwise?

​"You’re right that I am making a choice, but it’s not a random one—it’s a logical necessity. Here is why your 'Hitchens' logic falls apart: ​The Aryan Flourishing Fallacy: You claim the Nazis believed they were maximizing 'flourishing.' But true flourishing cannot be based on a lie. Their entire moral system was built on 'scientific' claims about race that were objectively, factually wrong. If a moral system is built on a fake map of reality, it isn't 'valid'—it’s a delusion. You don't need 'Western values' to reject a system based on false math or fake biology. ​The 'Tool' Argument: You ask who defines morality’s function. Think of it like language. We can have thousands of different languages (cultures), and they are all 'equally valid' ways to communicate. But if I start a language where every word means 'nothing,' it’s no longer a language because it can’t communicate. Morality has a built-in function: social cooperation. If a culture’s 'morality' makes cooperation impossible (like a culture that says you must kill your neighbors every Tuesday), it ceases to be a 'morality' at all. It’s just self-destruction. ​The Consistency Trap: You say I’m 'smuggling' in tolerance. But if you reject the idea that cultures are equally valid, you are forced to claim that your personal standards are the 'true' ones. By what authority? If you say 'Reason' or 'Science,' you are doing the exact same thing you accuse me of: picking a standard and calling it objective. The difference is, my standard (Tolerance) allows for multiple cultures to exist; your standard (Hierarchy) requires one to dominate the rest.

You've just proved my point. You claim the Nazi's biology was "objectively wrong," then pivoted to function. But function depends on goals. Their goal wasn't universal cooperation, it was racial dominance. By their standard, their system worked. You're back to asserting your goals matter more than theirs without justification. And your language analogy fails: a language where every word means nothing still communicates intent to a speaker. Your "built-in function" is manufactured. Tolerance doesn't avoid hierarchy either, it just refuses to name which values win. That's cowardice dressed as neutrality. Why should cooperation trump survival or domination? Answer that without hiding behind "objectivity."