Yes, absolutely. I am in awe of how well you write these things.
There exist levels of is’s and of oughts, like patterns in the tectonic fabric of life-spans and history-spans. These patterns appear, if not actually fractal, then at least highly geometrical, to me. From the 5th dimension (consciousness) we can observe these patterns crisscross each other and create wider and more concentrated effects, gatherings of power. The individual is as you say, “allowed” to live by virtue of his situation (or is not allowed to live, as the case may be), and assuming he is allowed to live will go through those stages of realization as you say. The ought generates from the is of the individual, but the is of the individual is the product of the oughts of others. (These oughts of others also repeating the pattern, as being the is of other individuals or social relations, which themselves are the consequence of the oughts of others…).
So there exists a spiraling-upward of is/ought relations in which humans are caught up, like a fish haplessly pulled up into the sky by a spinning typhoon. We are pulled up by the assumption of the vast history of which we are a representation, and the entirety of our lifespan exudes and reflects upon this history, and contributes toward the growing history that will shape the next stage of is/ought relationality; the upper limit, the threshold.
We need to find oughts that are able to produce a greater is from a lesser, to paraphrase what you said… yes, this is perfect. What other “moral” obligation could be greater than this? What could morality even mean, other than this? But it would mean the mere playing-out of the total-historical necessity of the individual’s own is, which is the sort of morality that I have been examining here and critiquing as insubstantial. So at this point (and thank you for entering this discussion, by the way) I conclude that there are two levels or degrees of morality, one being the kind which Hume responds to and which is actually nothing more than the naive expression of an is, in a form which acts upon that is in a way so as to blind or potentiate certain aspects of itself to itself, but always within the confines of the extant is-ness, and then there is the morality that deliberately situates two is’s next to each other, in order to produce a variance, an acceleration between them, in order to ‘shift’ the impetus and power from one to the other.
Morality at the behest of is, is as a consequence of ought, as a consequence of (lower) is… this is literally a tectonic formula, f(x) and f’(x’), for instance, within the fabric of existing materialities, such formula as acts to directly raise those variables to which it applies itself.