> common-sense appeal that practically bridges the gap between "is" and "ought."

That intrigues me, because if there's one thing that is particularly tiresome about Socialists it's that they invoke Hegel to rationalize everything they want and propose.

There is no necessity of a gap between "is" and "ought" - the assumption that there is presumes that either things are not ordered towards an end or that we cannot known that end. But that's clearly wrong. See Socrates' discourse with the slave boy in Meno and the universal desire for justice and happiness that all human beings posses.

> But that's clearly wrong.

Woefully lacking in details here.

> See Socrates' discourse with the slave boy in Meno and the universal desire for justice and happiness that all human beings posses.

What part would you like more elucidation of?

One descriptive theory of morality is Moral Foundations Theory[0]. Jonathan Haidt introduces it in his popular book The Righteous Mind[1].

My current thinking is that, since normative principles (what ought to be) cannot be demonstrated to be universally true, the best we can do is demonstrate that they are consistent with our core instincts and motives. For example, being generous to others is not right based on some external principle, but because if I had sufficient emotionally maturity, security, and insight I would recognize that my deepest desires extend far beyond immediate gratification of my physical desires.

[0]: https://moralfoundations.org/ [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Righteous_Mind

I couldn’t finish The Righteous Mind (too dry) but Moral Foundations Theory (and the examples in the book) has made a profound impact on my understanding of perspectives I disagree with, and generally made me much more empathetic and inquisitive when I encounter such perspectives. Really powerful stuff.