The outcome depends on intervention, and outcome following from no intervention can't be the guiding light. Without intervention, humans consistently die. Does it mean that it is morally right for them to die? Does it mean that a dead human should be left dead, that a human that was forced to take a pill that makes him want to kill people should be aided in killing people? Intervention is judged from within the framework of current morality, and it is not enough to look at the actions. Morality is an algorithm that is designed to work in many contexts, most of which won't actually occur. Reasoning about possible changes requires considering this algorithm, and meanings of morality-related concepts, such as "should", "could" and "better" are rooted in the structure of this algorithm. To build the question-seeking question, it is not enough to refer to the actual dynamics of question's implementation, it is also necessary to present this implementation through the lens of algorithmic structure, as recognized from our moral framework.

This suggests that even describing a fixed number of elements of this algorithm might not be enough to capture its meaning, the meaning of moral progress as we envision from within our moral framework. Saying "that thing over there" doesn't capture it, because understanding this question requires being able to look in the right way.