Of course you're going to think this, because you're far more familiar with your own culture's history than that of others.
In terms of ethical systems produced by the West, Utilitarianism, which calls on people to maximise well-being impartially, is perhaps the most sophisticated. Yet, it has many parallels in the ancient Chinese philosophy of
Mohism, which also called on people to equally consider the interests of all individuals. Its end-goals were slightly different (calling on people to maximise order, material wealth and population instead of happiness or preference-satisfaction), but it was still a sophisticated form of consequentialism. It also called on governments to promote meritocracy and social mobility. According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: the Mohists "formulated China’s first explicit ethical and political theories and
advanced the world’s earliest form of consequentialism, a remarkably sophisticated version based on a plurality of intrinsic goods taken as constitutive of human welfare." [My italics]
Other object-level ethical actions have been practiced in many cultures. Take India
under Akbar's reign from 1556-1605, in which religious pluralism was promoted both in the arts and in society in general:
"In order to preserve peace and order in a religiously and culturally diverse empire, he adopted policies that won him the support of his non-Muslim subjects... By abolishing the sectarian tax on non-Muslims and appointing them to high civil and military posts, he was the first Mughal ruler to win the trust and loyalty of the native subjects... Akbar himself was a patron of art and culture. He was fond of literature, and created a library of over 24,000 volumes written in Sanskrit, Hindustani, Persian, Greek, Latin, Arabic and Kashmiri, staffed by many scholars, translators, artists, calligraphers, scribes, bookbinders and readers."Indeed, religious pluralism and freedom of belief
has its roots in Asia: "Feuerbauch and Ernst Troeltsch concluded that Asian religious traditions, in particular Hinduism and Buddhism were earliest proponents of religious pluralism and granting of freedom to the individual to choose the faith and develop a personal religious construct within it... Jainism, another ancient Indian religion, as well as Daoism have also always been inclusively flexible and have long favored religious pluralism for those who disagree with their religious viewpoints... The Age of Enlightenment in Europe triggered a sweeping transformation about religion, segregation of state and religion, with rising acceptance of religious pluralism. These pluralist trends in Western thought, particularly since the 18th century,
brought mainstream Christianity and Judaism closer to the Asian traditions of philosophical pluralism, states Chad Meister". [My italics]
The edicts of
King Ashoka of India (3rd century BC) have been called the first decree respecting Freedom of Conscience. Ashoka emphasized respect for all religious teachers, harmonious relationship between parents and children, teachers and pupils, and employers and employees. Ashoka's religion contained gleanings from all religions. He emphasized the virtues of Ahimsa, respect to all religious teachers, equal respect for and study of each other's scriptures, and on rational faith. On top of this, he declared that slaughtering other animals was wrong. Because he banned hunting, created many veterinary clinics and eliminated meat eating on many holidays, the Mauryan Empire under Ashoka has been described as "one of the very few instances in world history of a government treating its animals as citizens who are as deserving of its protection as the human residents"
If you were just making a generic point and weren't arguing that our culture has a far greater history of developing ideas about ethics, then fine, but the above simply goes to show that people who say that their culture is more sophisticated probably simply aren't aware of other cultures in the first place.
You think their culture is sick, but if you're a moral relativist (as it is fashionable to be these days amongst non-philosophers), then there's nothing objectively inferior about a culture being "sick".