Life by definition wants to live. There is no life otherwise and no discussion of anything.
— Kaplan

Even if this is true, can you demonstrate how this assists us with morality as per my earlier question - — Tom Storm

At the most basic level this would assist us with every single moral question as it is the foundation. What I mean is, if the above statement is true, then good would be that which aids life and bad the opposite. As to the exact permutations and combinations this would look like in specific moral questions and practical/applied ethics, that is not my goal here.

I don’t understand your explanation of how you go from the fact that:

“…living is the first 'thing' an organism does and is what makes it an organism” to

“Living is an obligation for life. Therefore one ought to live, as being a being implies this by default.” — Mark S

To tackle the first part of your post to begin with. I get to the conclusion of obligation by the fact that the processes to create life in the first place exists at all. The opposite of life and existence is death and nothingness. Life doens't have to happen. But the mere fact it does leads me to believe that to proactively force the opposite is a violation.

Agreed. Want here is the wrong word. Something is 'wired to live' may be more appropriate.

Yes I am aware that just because it exists in nature that does not make that something good - perhaps it's the paradigm itself I'm trying to get at. What I mean is, I don't necessarily subscribe to the 'you cannot get an ought from an is'. In boiling down every facet of existence (as it pertains to life in this context) it seems the most primitive thing that matters by definition is the bare minimum required for a life to exist. Life by definition wants to live. There is no life otherwise and no discussion of anything.

For example, I believe that implicit within facts are values. From this paradigm, there is no gap between fact and value. We do not merely percieve a fact. Even in our most unlearned state, we filter that fact through biological and mental apparatus that we have inherited from millions of years of evolution, and that fact holds a relevance for us beyond it's mere 'is'ness - the two are inseparable.

Now I am still working through refining my thoughts in the above paragraph, but I think the is/ought problem, or the naturalistic fallacy, are unassailable gaps perhaps from one paradigm, but not from another which is just as viable.

Taking what you said with "This is a fact about life, this is what happens when life is created." to point out the issue with that I said, I suppose what I am trying to do is go back one step further. So rather than saying "this is what happens when life is created" I'm trying to go down a level deeper and establish the basis of life itself as the ought by default - does that make it clearer?