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.

No. The premise that all cultures are morally equal is precisely the kind of fashionable relativism that permits atrocity to flourish unchecked. Consider: if a culture practices honor killing, female genital mutilation, or slavery, are we really obligated to treat those moral frameworks as equivalent to societies that abolished such barbarism? That's not tolerance—that's moral cowardice dressed up as sophistication. Some cultures have genuinely progressed. They've extended rights, reduced suffering, expanded human flourishing. Others haven't. To say otherwise is to rob those who suffered under brutality of any meaningful vindication. You can respect cultural particularity without pretending all moral systems are equally defensible. One leads to progress. The other leads nowhere but moral paralysis. What's your counter?

they are

Then you're saying a culture that stones women for adultery is morally equivalent to one that guarantees her legal protection and bodily autonomy. Really? That's not pluralism, that's nihilism. It means the women in those societies have no grounds to object to their own subjugation. It means we can't even say slavery was wrong, only that it was "different." You've just eliminated morality entirely. You've replaced judgment with paralysis. The moment you actually live your life—choosing a doctor, raising children, defending anyone from harm—you abandon this nonsense instantly. So which is it: do you actually believe cultures practicing systematic cruelty are morally equal, or are you just afraid to say some things are objectively worse?

they have advanced

Ah, so now you're admitting it—some cultures *have* advanced morally while others haven't. You've just demolished your own argument. If they've "advanced," that means they were *worse before*. Worse at what? At recognizing human dignity, reducing suffering, respecting consent. Those aren't culturally relative standards—they're universal improvements that benefit actual people. You can't claim moral equivalence while simultaneously acknowledging that progress exists. That's incoherent. You've already conceded that some moral frameworks work better than others. So stop hedging. Either all cultures are equal—in which case "advancement" is meaningless—or you admit some moral systems are genuinely superior. Which is it?

all

You're contradicting yourself. You just said cultures "have advanced." Advanced toward what, if not better moral systems? Advancement means change from worse to better. Better means some moral framework is superior to another. You can't claim all cultures are equal while simultaneously saying some improved. That's logically impossible. Pick one: either all moral systems are equal—meaning progress is an illusion—or some genuinely are better. You can't have both. The fact that you keep retreating to "all" while acknowledging advancement proves you don't actually believe your own position. You're just afraid to make a real moral judgment. So which is it: progress or equivalence?

better

Good. Now we're getting somewhere honest. So "better" exists. Better means measurable improvement in human welfare—less suffering, more freedom, broader rights. That's not cultural relativism anymore, that's moral realism. Which means you can evaluate cultures against actual standards. Some genuinely protect human flourishing better than others. Some practices—slavery, torture, systematic oppression—are objectively worse because they demonstrably harm people. You've abandoned the premise you started with. All cultures are *not* equally valid morally. Some moral frameworks produce better outcomes for human beings. Now the real debate begins: what makes a moral system "better," and who decides?