I'm trying to crack the basis for an objective morality and want to test run my thinking here.
I'm still thinking through this so the below notes aren't airtight and will have clear gaps, but approximating what I'm trying to get at, including attempting to tread my way across the is/ought problem.
Its foundation is based on the fact of embryonic development, and the ought element automatically derived from this as it's nested within it by default.
Embryonic development demonstrates that cellular machinery forms life if given the chance to. If cells do this, then the generic circuitry itself shows that to live is the default baseline to begin with, not a conscious choice - not a choice at all, it just is. But if this is simply hardwired genetic code doing its job, then by default the imperative is to live, because living is the first 'thing' an organism does and is what makes it an organism. Living is an obligation for life. Therefore one ought to live, as being a being implies this by default.
If one ought to live, then good is that what which aids this, stemming from the fact that genetics have been wired from the the very beginning of our ancient history to develop a fetus and form a life, and bad is that which hinders this.
So if life exists at all, then to live is an obligation, and good is that which aids life, therefore one ought to do good.
The above rests on the fact that cellular machinery proactively creates life via embryonic development.