Posters like Flasher, Peter Holmes, Sculptor, IC and their likes are making a mountain out of a molehill and too much noise with this 'Is-Ought' dichotomy.
In this article;
- The Triviality of the Debate over "Is-Ought" and the Definition of "Moral"
https://www.jstor.org/stable/20009474?s ... b_contents
It is not practical to provide all the details for his justifications.Peter Singer wrote:I shall argue that the differences between the contending parties are terminological, and that there are various possible terminologies, none of which has, on balance, any great advantage over any other terminology.
It follows that the disputes over the definition of morality and over the "is-ought" problem are disputes over words which raise no really significant issues.
The dispute between the neutralist and the descriptivist, therefore, is a dispute about where, within a limited framework, morality shall be placed. – i.e. fact or action.
So instead of continuing to regard these issues as central, moral philosophers could, I believe, "agree to disagree" about the "is-ought" problem,
and about the definition of morality, provided only that everyone was careful to stipulate how he was using the term "moral" and was aware of the implications and limitations of the definition he was using.
Moral philosophers could then move on to consider more important issues.
The above conclusions are justified in the article.
The Content [not given] I abstracted are as follows;
Two Extreme Views on Morality
........Neutralist’s Moral Principles are Overriding
........Moral Principle Held = Way he Acts - Actions
2. Descriptivism [naturalism]
........Links Moral Principles to Action
Reconciliation of the Two Views
........Neutralism Do Not Differ with Descriptivism on how Facts are connected with Reason
A Middle Position 
Above are Three Positions Considered