Please empirically demonstrate what one "ought" to do.
Show me the microscope slide or express the mathematical formula for determining "ought."
Easy.
"Oughts" can be derived from "is"... in fact, that's the only way to get them.
If one *wants* to drive a nail (the is), then one *ought* to use a hammer.***
If one *wants* to drive a deck screw (the is), then one *ought* to use a drill.
And if you *really* want to accomplish those tasks, its an empirical fact, that you ought not try and use something like a chisel. It won't work. This is exactly how morality works.
If one *values* well-being (the is), then one ought to respect his neighbors property.
If one *values* well-being (the is), then one ought to do allow same-sex couples to marry.
Now, I'd agree.. in all the cases above, what one ought to do is dependent on a subjective desire. But it is true, regardless of one's personal subjective belief, that if one *wants* to drive a nail, one ought to use a hammer***. And its possibly true, that regardless of one's personal subjective belief, that if one values well-being, then one ought to respect his neighbor's property. But what if there are things that *all* people universally desire - above all else? This desire would no longer just be subjective, but a property of *all* human minds. Well, then we can say something empirical about what these minds *ought* to do, given this universal desire, just like we can say something empirical about what one ought to do, if one wants to drive a nail. We then have universal moral imperatives.
This is even how theist morality works. Christianity, for example, has a lot to say about what I *ought* to do, but only if I actually value going to heaven. But what if I value hell? What if I would genuinely rather go there? Then I *ought* to do things that will eventually put me in hell. The only way Christian morality can work for me, is if I actually value going to heaven, period.
You might say that humans only care about well-being because evolution programmed them too... but similarly under theism, you could only say that humans desire heaven because God designed them too. In both cases though, the moral system is rooted in something *real* - objective, universal desires - nothing else. And that is sufficient. It doesn't make sense to dig deeper than that.
And so finally, I do believe there are universal human desires - which all humans really want above all else - namely, well-being. Some people might be mistaken about their own desires and wants, but ultimately I do believe that's what we all seek. And so I believe there are universal moral imperatives.
Near as I can tell life was an accident. No one and nothing intended it to be here. It exists only by chemical determinance which itself is based on little more than the happenstance of the physical universe existing in the first place. Life as we see it is built on innumerable corpses killed off by shifting climate, disease, starvation, predators, stray rocks from space etc etc etc. Non-Life far outweighs Life as a force within the universe and Death wins all. One day all life will be extinguished with no one to mourn, judge or console. In a billion years--or one-billionth of that time--humanity will cease to exist. It will be consumed or displaced and nothing within the mindless universe will say "here lies a just/cruel race that did/not have gay marriage." Even the appeals to this society rely on the fact that this society itself stands upon a heap of other societies that have long since died out and it was like that ever since homonids started clubbing each to the tune of Thus Spake Zarathustra. If you want "human rights" go complain to those hairy bastards because they started it.
This is nice a poetic, but what's the actual argument? Some clearly worded premises and conclusions would help me make sense of it. How does any of this negate the existence of values and desires, upon which morality is based?
***Yes, sometimes nailguns are better, etc, but we don't need to get that nitpicky - there are situations where its empircally better to use a nailgun and where its empircally better to use a hammer.