I have heard it implied that no culture is better than any other. This seems, on the face of it, wrong. As part of the nature of a culture, it will promote certain social actions and hinder others: therefore, most cultures will promote some good actions and some bad, promote bad and hinder good; and it will promote and hinder things which are neither good nor bad such as what is called manners, dress, or cuisine.
No culture I know of is perfect, that is, no culture I know of wholly retards evil and wholly expedites good. Considering then my own culture, which is the one I know best, I can compare it with itself, that is, I can compare today with yesterday. And here is a point I think damning to the idea that all cultures are equal: The history of my culture is one of moral ups and downs, of great reformers who changed the culture for the better.
It seems self evident that if we believe that cultures can improve, we must then, holding that one state of affairs is better than another, view the culture changed for the better as better than what it was. If it is better than what it was, then the current culture is better than the past culture, and we have an example which I cannot square with the premise that all cultures are morally equivalent. If we say no culture is better than any other we must give up judging cultures all together and say that there is no difference morally between a culture which enslaves its people and one that sets them free.
Tale Told 