I agree with several things the author states but I would assert certain things I consider facts:

"Value" is a myth, it is neither objective or subjective but fiction. As is "need/necessity". As are "rights" and "duty/responsiblity/obligation/owing". As is "importance". As is "authority" and "legality".

The author mentions "keeping “the good” and “the right” in their separate categories". I agree with the statment but in an opposite way. Morality is not about right and wrong (i.e. accurate and inaccurate, 1+1=42 is not immoral), it is (to simplify) about good and evil (rape is not inaccurate, it is malevolent hence evil hence immoral).

Also, I feel the author is a bit... disingenious when pointing out that "ought" is illogical yet feels that a comprehensible public term "should" inform "our ethics and political authority and legal ontology". "Should" is a myth, we're free to nuke the planet like it's the '60s over the Cuban missile crisis.