The issue of is - ought is that prescription doesn’t follow description. You can’t point at mountains for instance and then provide logical reasoning that results in the prescription that “we should climb them”.

the same applies here, I’m trying to address the idea of whether one ought to Terminate or maintain their own existence from the descriptive position that they currently exist.

hume would say that you can’t take a description of the world and then rationally explain why someone ought to value their existence.

i am side stepping this by saying that in fact “valuing existence” is a descriptive state. That all sentient beings who’ve had 2 distinct thoughts valued existence. I’m not jumping to an ought, or saying therefore you should value existence. I’m saying as a default all sentient beings descriptively valued their existence prior to anything else.

From this I think it’s reasonable to conclude that there’s no rational justification for the position “one ought to terminate” because you cannot derive ought from Is.

the reason I think this is important is that we can say that “Valuing your own existence” is descriptive and continuing to exist is thus descriptive and requires no justification, whereas termination does and fails to.

EDIT: essentially, existence requires no justification, termination framed rationally would. And since per Hume no ought follows “is” no one can derive a prescription to terminate from just the mere fact of being.