What is it about you that makes you think the is-ought problem is a problem you ought to be worried about? Advocates of the importance of the is-ought problem

What is it about you that makes you think the is-ought problem is a problem you ought to be worried about? Advocates of the importance of the is-ought problem want us to be deeply concerned about it, but they never explain why we ought to be. And in fact, we ought not be worried about it whether it is solved, unsolved or unsolvable: Once we identify what it is in our nature that makes solving the is-ought problem a problem we ought to be worried about, we will have solved the is-ought problem and it will no longer be a problem we ought to be worried about. Until we have identified what it is in our nature that makes the is-ought problem a problem we ought to be worried about, we have no reason to consider it a problem we ought to be worried about. QED For myself, I think the is-ought problem is ill-posed in its traditional "ultimate moral justification" form and trivially easy in any sensible form that acknowledges the vast amount of stuff Hume didn't know, like evolutionary biology. The sensible form doesn't solve the ultimate-moral-justification question Hume was concerned with for the same reason chemists never solved the creation of the Philosopher's Stone alchemists were concerned with: because such problems are the result of bizarre fantasies that have nothing to do with actual human existence. Science will never tell us how to forge the One Ring, either, but that isn't because of the limitations of science, it's because the One Ring is fantasy, just like ultimate moral justifications and the Philosopher's Stone.