[Thought experiment] If alignments are objective how do we know what they represent?

[OldTrees1]

I do not see how you can remove the goal orientation from "ought" and have it still mean anything. It's very definition requires that there be purpose.

I am open to being proven wrong, here. If you can show me how you can use "ought" without it having an unspoken "...in order to [something]," I will be better able to discuss it as you seem to see it.

How would showing help? I have shown how it is used. "What Ought one do?" and "Ought one do X?" are examples. There is no hidden/unspoken "in order to [something]". If you change it to "Should one X in order to Y?" by presuming a purpose, I can change back to "Ought one Y?" by challenging the purpose.

It is okay if that is a communication barrier. I cannot make it more clear without more shared premises (even then, this is one of the root concepts so I don't know which other shared premises could help).

Is it always the right answer, under all circumstances, no matter what anybody wants, needs, or is?

The right answer is always named/labeled "moral" as a way to make it talking about it more concise.

You might notice I did not say "It is always the right answer". I said "the right answer" is given the nickname "moral" as a shorter name / label. It is always the case that the right answer is itself, and we will name it "moral" to make it easier to talk about it.

The branch of Metaethics deals (among other things) with the rest of your questions about the nature of the answer to the question. I will not get into those topics at this time (including the subthread I left).