Scottish Philosopher and Historian David Hume posted the "Is -  Ought" problem. Basically he found that writers made claims on what 'ought to be' based on 'what is', when there is no obvious path to move from a 'descriptive statement to a 'prescriptive statement'. Which is all well and nice, but I see no problem in this. There can't be a problem, when there is no 'is' or 'ought'. 

​

As I explain in Good & Evil, there is no good or evil. Since these don't exist, you can't say: "stealing is bad, thiefs ought to be punished". You can say: "Stealing is considered to be bad and thieves should be punished". 

​

Should and Ought are being used interchangibly, but there is a slight difference. Ought is used when you want to express an objective truth. Should is used when you want to express an subjective opinion. If there is no objective 'truth', like there is no evil, then there is no ought.

If there is no 'is' and no 'ought' then there is no 'is - ought' problem. 

​

This is my position. With regards to moral questions there is no 'objective is'. There is no 'objective truth'. Sure, there are objective facts, but how we interpret those facts is fully subjective. We can determine objectively, that someone has stolen something. But that isn't bad by default. There could be mitigating circumstances. Only after review of all facts, can you make a subjective ruling on this. 

​

As we rule out the 'is', we could also rule out the 'ought'. We could or we should do something, but we never 'ought' to do something. This again goes to the circumstances. As you make an assessment on what has happend, you draw a subjective conclusion. However, when others do the same, they might come to a different conclusion. As opinions might vary, you can not have an 'ought'. You can however compromise and get a 'should'.