Unsure if I would go so far as to say that this is okay when doing a merely descriptive thing... is that even possible, to be purely descriptive in that sense?

I think it's logically possible (lol). In theory, I can observe that ethical norms differ from place to place with out making any normative judgement - though as my more sociologically-minded colleagues would argue, there is no 'view from nowhere'. There's a whole rabbit-hole we can go down by seeking to collapse the is-ought distinction too, but I think this is pretty contested across (and between) analytic philosophy and sociological approaches that seek to be more 'grounded'in people's lived experience.

But what I don't really get from this, is what you suggest we do about this.

No need to feel bad for asking that question of a philosopher. My personal answer hovers somewhere between Rawls-style reflective equilibrium and Russell-style emotivism, depending on how good or bad a day I'm having. I'm still working on what I think in that regard. (Of course, pretending to know THE ANSWER is vastly more profitable).

More broadly, I'm not sure that an answer is really essential to change things. I suspect that if more people thought about the question, and were better equipped to do this thinking, things would be different, and they might well be better.