(Primarily a response to HumAnIze’s posts - apologies thinkdr for the derailment)
[tab]If there is a goal / objective, then actions can be compared relative to their capacity to ideally realize this outcome.
If the ‘is’ in is/ought, references a goal, then the oughts logically unfold.
We are born with preferences - born with instinctual goals.
But often our instincts conflict upon one another.
They cannot each be followed indiscriminately without undermining each other.
Therefore people, due to many influences, set goals themselves in a hierarchy.
A problem emerges when others disagree with that hierarchy.
The case is to be made why one hierarchical set of goals, is wiser, than another set.
There’s a case which I agree with and would gladly attempt to make.
There is an underlying pattern/theme/direction to the evolution of our instincts.
Given natural selection - our instincts are a set of drives that enabled us to survive in this environment.
If we align ourselves with survival using reason and rationality,
many of our drives / instincts will be satisfied.
However, we must ensure quality of life - not simply prolonged existence.
That we make space for frivolous things which give us pleasure,
assuming that they don’t undermine the primary objective -
sustainability of the community.
In this scenario, health can be defined as one’s alignment with survival / sustainability.
That one is well adapted to survival, and has the capacity to resist against the threats to this end.
Happiness itself, is a tool which enables us to fight against risks to our survival -
as look to those who commit suicide… they were not happy. ( an extreme example )
Let’s say we only have one life - after this life, eternal oblivion.
Let’s say someone’s ‘sick’, relative to the above definition of health.
If we have yet to develop the capacity to ‘heal’ them,
why ought they listen to our values?
Why shouldn’t they run with their own ‘unhealthy’ values?
as that’s the hand the cosmos has dealt them.
It is rational for them to run with their set of values,
despite it contradicting the wider population.
This is a dilemma.
Why ought they seek to live a life of misfortune?
As to adjust to our values, would only cause their suffering.
We can make a case to each other, but can we make the case to them?
‘You’re a casualty of our ignorance. Sorry.’
That ain’t compelling.
For them to act to the benefit of the majority,
would be an expression of ‘health’,
which we’ve already established they lack.
(Assuming again one life - no afterlife…)
Let’s say someone believes sentience is bad.
That to experience existence is a mistake.
That every single life ought not be.
That to support life is an error.
That to eliminate life is wisdom.
That one is being ‘charitable’,
if they took it upon themselves to extinguish all life.
An alien species that travels the cosmos,
eliminating sentience before it takes root.
A mercy - as to them, any contribution to this end is positive.
If all your reasons are rooted in life,
which they believe inherently wrong,
on what basis do your beliefs outweigh theirs?
We can be dealt all sorts of hands.
Hands dealt to us can be in conflict to another’s.
Where if each party acts to their interests,
there is disagreement - despite intelligence.
To my mind, a primary way to surpass this -
is to dismantle one’s being and reconstruct it.
One will only do this if influenced so,
but if influenced so,
one can almost build oneself anew.
To reconstruct the aspects of one’s being,
such that the result of one’s function / outcome,
mirrors the vision of one’s ideal.
That one wisely fuels one’s being,
to only produce that which one values.
That one can recognize parts of the being,
that undermines or risks the greater vision,
and can respond to those aspects accordingly.
Is it possible for two separate beings,
to hold the wisest goal for themselves,
and for their goals to be in discord?
If so, how is good/bad solely an issue of intelligence,
if good/bad are relative to goals, and goals are subject dependent?
Sounds like a type of utilitarianism. But somewhere along the way, you decided utilitarianism is dumb. So instead of challenging that belief, you’ll instead continue to redicule utilitarianism. As any good philosopher would, right? 
[/tab]