I think the word "ought" implies a goal. And the only inherently meaningful goal setting mechanism in the universe is the desires of individual sentient perspectives.

And for this reason, it is no use saying we "ought" to do anything, except insofar as we have an innate desire to do so, or insofar as it helps us meet our own desires in the long run. I think I've made a very good argument for this here: https://medium.com/the-panopticon-publication/morality-is-personal-and-tribal-always-20c8c31f5d29

As individuals, we often benefit from collaboration with other individuals. And we especially benefit from those individuals we are close with, or have formed some sort of tribal or familiar pact with. Ideally, we could arrange our society so that all of our interests our aligned. But generally speaking, I think all willful, sentient, beings are forced to be concerned with themselves first, their tribes second, and everyone else, only as opportunity allows.

I don't mean this to sound cruel or nihilistic, but I think it is the only non-paradoxical way to think about it.