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

Yes all cultures are valid morally because cultures are based on socially accepted practises ingrained as habits across communities and have a strong foothold nothing these communities.

You've just described *why* they're not morally valid—not why they are. Habit and social acceptance prove nothing about morality. Slavery was deeply ingrained across countless communities for millennia. Female genital mutilation remains a cultural "practice" in parts of Africa and the Middle East. Honor killings are normalized in some societies. Were these morally acceptable because communities accepted them? Morality isn't a democracy. The fact that billions believe something doesn't make it right. A culture's age or entrenchment only means the injustice runs deeper. By your logic, any atrocity becomes defensible the moment enough people inherit it as tradition. What makes a practice moral—community consensus or actual human harm?

In lens of morality, you are right, some practises seen though humanity lens are not right

Now you're caving already. Good. But let's be precise about what you just admitted: you've conceded the entire argument. If some practices are "not right through humanity's lens," then cultures are *not* equally valid morally. Full stop. You can't have it both ways—saying cultures are equally valid while acknowledging some are objectively wrong. That's intellectual surrender dressed up as nuance. The real question becomes: what's this "humanity's lens"? It's universal moral principles that transcend culture. Suffering matters regardless of zip code. Consent matters. Dignity matters. These aren't Western impositions—they're human truths that cultures either honor or violate. So which is it: are cultures equal or aren't they?

Cultures are not equal they are diverse. Morality is also a matter of subjectivity. Scientific studies show that upbringing and influences can drastically alter sense of individual morality. So my contention is that all cultures are valid. But they are not equal morally because morality is subjective and cultures are diverse so morality in one social context might differ in another social context

You're smuggling in objectivity while claiming subjectivity. If morality is purely subjective, then "valid" means nothing—it's just a feel-good word hiding moral cowardice. Subjectivity doesn't rescue your argument, it destroys it. Yes, upbringing shapes us. So what? A Nazi raised to hate Jews had his morality shaped too. Does that make Nazi ideology "valid"? Of course not. Explaining *why* someone believes something immoral doesn't make the belief legitimate. You're conflating "cultures differ" with "therefore all are equally defensible." That's a logical disaster. Diversity of practice doesn't equal moral equivalence. A culture that practices infanticide is not "valid"—it's wrong, regardless of context. What makes something valid if not actual rightness?

As I said earlier, an imoral belif by you can be a moral belief in their eyes. They may have a believable explanation. You being the judge is not democratic.

Then you're not arguing for moral validity—you're arguing for moral relativism where nothing is wrong, ever. That's incoherent. A Nazi's "believable explanation" doesn't make genocide moral in their eyes—it makes genocide still genocide. Your framework collapses the moment we ask: if both views are equally valid, why should we listen to *you* instead of the Nazi? You've eliminated grounds for disagreement entirely. Being "the judge" isn't democratic, correct. But neither is moral truth a vote. Some cultures practiced slavery. That wasn't valid then, isn't valid now, won't be valid if someone resurrects it tomorrow. Not because I'm judging, but because enslaving humans causes real suffering. If everything is valid, nothing matters.

You said it, if both views are equally valid, that means they are morally valid morally by each of their viewpoints. Real suffering is caused by lot of morally accepted cultures. Even that should be invalid, but isn't. Being submissive as woman is sicialy pleasing and morally accepted in many cultures, but it can cause real suffering to lots of woman in circumstances

You've just proved my point for me. Women suffering under submissive roles shows that cultural acceptance *doesn't* make something morally valid. The suffering is real regardless of whether the culture calls it "moral." You keep saying "valid by their viewpoint"—that's not validity, that's just describing what people believe. A belief being widespread doesn't make it right. Those suffering women don't experience their oppression as "valid"—they experience it as injustice. So stop hiding behind "subjectivity" and "viewpoints." You actually agree: some cultures cause real harm that's genuinely wrong. That means cultures aren't all morally valid. You've already lost this argument. You just won't admit it.