This project explores a key ambiguity in bioethics: its difficulty reconciling universal ethical principles with cultural diversity and calls for cultural safety, often resulting in unclear commitments and limited global relevance. It highlights “ethical passivism” in mainstream bioethics—a reluctance to extend normative analysis beyond liberal, democratic contexts. This hesitation, often driven by a desire to avoid appearing imperialist or colonialist, is rooted in epistemic imbalances in bioethics literature, and limited engagement with power dynamics. As a result, the concept of cultural diversity can be misused to shield practices from ethical scrutiny. I argue that dichotomies such as Western/non-Western or Global North/Global South are both a cause and a symptom of this passivism. Drawing on anthropological and empirical research, I demonstrate that such binaries are increasingly irrelevant in a world shaped by migration, digital interconnectivity, and shared global challenges. The political and professional consequences of this dichotomisation are significant. When ethical analysis is applied selectively, entire societies—particularly those outside liberal democratic frameworks—may be excluded from the normative protection bioethics is meant to offer. Within liberal democracies, rigid cultural frames can also intensify power imbalances and flatten complex moral perspectives within minority communities. Meanwhile, the global cultural landscape is shifting. Locally, communities are becoming more diverse; globally, these diversities contribute to broader patterns of cultural harmonisation. Ultimately, this paper argues for the development of new frameworks for cross-cultural normative analysis that are both inclusive and morally committed.