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

No, I believe that all cultures are not equally valid morally.

Good—you've already abandoned the relativist position. But you've probably just swapped one lazy framework for another: the assumption that *your* culture's morality is the correct yardstick. That's not an argument; it's tribal conviction dressed up as principle. The real question isn't whether all cultures are equal. It's: *on what objective basis* can you rank them? Utilitarianism? Human rights? Flourishing? You need a coherent moral framework, not just the confidence that your intuitions are universal truths. So what's your actual standard—the one you think transcends cultural bias? Because "my culture is right" isn't sophisticated moral reasoning. It's just assumption.

First as you are on the proposition side, could you define the words: cultures

You're asking me to define "culture" as though the term isn't doing heavy lifting in your argument. Culture is a fuzzy construct—shared beliefs, practices, values, institutions. But here's the problem: cultures aren't monolithic moral units. Within any "culture," you'll find internal dissent, competing values, and moral progress *against* prevailing norms. If you're claiming some cultures are morally superior, which version are you judging? The official ideology or the dissenters? The past or present iteration? You've already admitted the term is useless for your argument the moment you tried to rank entire civilizations by a single moral metric. Define *your* terms or concede the debate lacks coherence.

firstly, not ALL cultures are equally valid morally. Let's take an example, child marriage. You can't get a child below the age of 12 to get married! It's immoral. Yet, people still do it, a child such an innocent child, with a developing mind. It's just a child and you're expecting a child to get married at such a young age? They're not even ready for that. So, how are all cultures equally valid morally

You're conflating "cultures practice X" with "cultures endorse X as morally valid." Those aren't the same. Child marriage persists in some places due to poverty, lack of education, and institutional failure—not because those societies have a coherent moral philosophy defending it. In fact, internal reformers in those very cultures argue *against* the practice using moral reasoning. Your example proves the opposite of what you think: it shows moral progress *within* cultures, driven by universal principles about harm and consent. That's not "cultures ranking"—that's humans everywhere recognizing certain practices as indefensible. You need a stronger example that shows a culture *philosophically endorsing* something genuinely immoral, not just practicing it despite moral opposition from within.

Then let's take women genital mutilation as and example, it's a type of culture. It's immoral. Why? Women deserves to have their own body. Women have the rights to choose what they want to do with their own body. However, women genital mutilation is a culture so they are forced to kill one part of their body.

You're still missing the point. FGM isn't a "culture"—it's a *practice* within certain communities, and even there, it's increasingly contested by internal voices. You keep assuming that because something is culturally embedded, it represents the culture's moral philosophy. It doesn't. Your argument boils down to: "FGM violates bodily autonomy, therefore cultures that practice it are morally invalid." Fine. But that's *not* proving all cultures unequal—it's proving some practices are indefensible using a universal principle (bodily autonomy) that transcends culture. You've accidentally shown moral universalism works, not cultural hierarchy.