Q1: Yes. There has not been much improvement in following one's better nature.

Q2: Throughout all parts of the world. Few things of this fundamental magnitude remain isolated for long.

Q3: I say it's part of the evolutionary process. Evolution works through generations and, it seems to me, that every four or five generational passes creates an advance in social and human growth.

I'm only going to respond to Question 2. Why would you think any progress would happen only in Western countries????? This may not be what you intended, but it almost sounds like the argument that has been presented that 'civilization' is a Western phenonemon -- and a White one, at that -- when there is significant evidence to the contrary. Or am I missing the point of the question?

What is "Moral" has changed. Burning witches is still moral for some. They can only get away with it in those countries that provide the legal opportunity.

I don't care what people think. I care how they behave. But, not killing someone is not an indicator of the persons moral precepts and how they are promulgated to their offspring. I still prefer the not-killing part.

Stephen Pinker has done the research about lots of this.
But, the spread of fascism, russia, china, islam,..., indicates we are still in deep shit.

Yes and no

Challenging but one really needs to have a definition and indicator of what identifies moral progress. Then a means of measurement in order to create an empirical answer rather than subjective conjecture. An existentialist would say yes compared to the aristocratic and oligarchic preferences in Medieval Europe but a pacifist would say no due to the development of advanced weaponary.

Definitely the greatest moral progress in Europe was the reformation and then the enlightenment.

Islamic countries appear to have regressed since the days of the Ottoman empire

It all depends on how you define progress.

If you look at ancient America, there were a lot of civilizations that built stone cities, without the use og metal tools. However in every case in doing do they pretty much destroyed their surrounding environment. So, many tribes chose living in harmony with nature. Which society was actually more progressed? Was it those who changed their environment and inadvertently destroyed it, or those who chose to live in harmony with their environment?

Moral progress happens. Then it faulters. Rinse, wash, repeat.

The goals of the Enlightenment failed in the 20th Century.

Leo Strauss said:
"...a society which, was accustomed to understand itself in terms of a universal purpose, cannot lose faith in that purpose without becoming completely bewildered."

Culture lost purpose...I think to a large extent utility was transvalued by culture into 'purpose', god's death left a vacuum in thought

I think that there are two questions here not one, since by moral progress do you mean, are humans getting better at following moral codes, or are we developing better moral codes.

If it is the first, then no, because that is about human nature which only changes on evolutionary time scales, and which indeed, with many of the selective pressures which made us moral when we were apes living on the African plains removed or reduced, may go backwards. ( For example now that we have medicine, which means that injuries are less dangerous, we can afford to be more violent, since the injuries we cause and the injuries we suffer in retaliation are less likely to kill or disable.)

If it is the second then maybe, ( but you have first to say what you consider "progress", which could be very subjective and not the same everywhere. )

Humankind shows a history of ebb and flow in relation to moral progress. When we have moral progress, it is due to multiple factors, chief among them norms of treating all with full dignity and respect. Oter factors include education, norms and institutions which foster critical thinking, the free exchange of ideas, minimization of formal social stratification.

This is actually a good question. Yes there has been progress in some areas. Not all areas and not enough. I do think as a whole the world is better now than it was in the past, not in every area but in most. Not sure if that is moral progress or what you want to call it. Less starvation, more civil rights better access to medical care and education. More social awareness and overall quality of life is better. Is that moral progress? Not sure about the moral part.

Not since the phrase moral progress was coined.

Yes, no and all of the above.

Define what constitutes "moral", and "moral progress" in your opinion. Its a vague catch-all term that may mean many things to many people. Until we have a common understanding of what we are discussing, an intelligent discussion may not be possible.

Moral progress is tied to economic largess, education, shared heritage and many other positive factors. The sad thing is moral decay reverses many of these same gains due to war, lack of education, greed, selfishness etc. Humans think technology somehow defines progress, I think technology allows room, time and the opportunity for progress and moral action. So yes there has been moral progress as well as moral decay. My definition of morality is action supporting the physical, mental and psychological well being of humans.

No.

There is no such thing as "moral progress".
Even if there were, humans are completely incapable of it.

I really have a problem with anyone who wants to discuss (or pontificate)
about "morality".
Morality is a completely subjective concept.
What one person may believe to be "moral", another person would find that particular belief completely appalling.

Morals are also completely changeable from one culture, or time period, to
another.

You might need to define moral progress for any answer to be meaningful. Do you mean, are people becoming inherently more moral, or do you mean, are societies creating more just conditions for people to live in, etc.