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

I disagree with it because it none of the cultures are equal in any kind of situations

You're abandoning the real fight by retreating to "they're not equal in situations." Of course they differ in outcomes, resources, technology. That's empirical, not moral. The question is whether those differences make some cultures *morally superior*—and you haven't argued that yet. You've just restated that they're different. So do you actually believe some cultures are morally better than others, or are you just saying inequality exists? Those are completely different claims. Which one are you defending?

I think it is true that there are morally different countries

Now we're getting somewhere. But "morally different" is evasive—it could mean anything. Do you mean some cultures are *morally superior*, or just that they have different moral frameworks? Because if it's just the latter, that's relativism dressed in different clothes, and it doesn't actually support your position. If you mean some are genuinely *better*, then name one. What specific practice in Culture A is morally worse than Culture B's equivalent, and why? You need concrete examples, not abstractions. Otherwise you're just asserting superiority without justifying it.

Every country is different in their ways, there are better and worse also but it can depend on a lot of things why they can be better. Nowadays people think some cities are better because the people who live there they feel themselves happier and better in that specific country. but this is subjective why someone feels better in one spesific place

You've just demolished your own argument. You admitted it's subjective—happiness and comfort vary by individual preference. That means you can't actually ground moral superiority in how people *feel*. Feelings are unreliable measures of moral truth. So if happiness is your metric, you've conceded that cultures aren't objectively morally better or worse—only different for different people. That's relativism, not moral hierarchy. You started by claiming some cultures are morally superior. Now you're saying it depends on subjective experience. Pick one. Are cultures objectively ranked morally, or does morality depend on the observer?

In my opinion there are a lot of stereotypes which influences people thinking in this topic that's why we cannot actually say if a country is morally superior or not

So stereotypes distort our judgment, therefore we can't rank cultures morally. That's not an argument for moral equality—it's an argument that we lack reliable knowledge. Two completely different things. You're confusing epistemology with ontology. Even if stereotypes cloud our view, that doesn't mean moral differences don't exist; it just means we struggle to see them clearly. The real question remains: do you believe cultures *are* morally equivalent despite our limited perspective, or do you think some genuinely are better but we can't reliably identify which? You keep retreating to "we can't know" instead of answering whether differences exist at all.