[marginalia_nu]

> the "is-ought" problem follows from a particular (very problematic) metaphysics

Why is it problematic?

> It does not follow from an Aristotelian understanding of metaphysics.

Aristotle's metaphysics does also carry some baggage. It is contingent on an unmoved mover/active intellect that creates not only motion but purpose in the universe.

Although his ethics can broadly be taken at face value as long as you agree with the proposition that your purpose is to flourish as a human. It does seem to work pretty well, although the question he was truly answering was how to be a happy individual, whereas the meaning of ethics has shifted over the millennia to deal more with civic virtues than personal ones.