Let's be clear about context. Terms like 'good', 'right', 'art' and 'beauty', 'knowledge', 'justice', etc are not created out of whole cloth. They refer to... well, something... that has a distinct and powerful impact on the world. People prefer certain experiences to others; they desire certain things above other things. They want the place they live to be beautiful, clean, and filled with light, not ugly, filthy, and covered in darkness. A leader who has knowledge makes better decisions than a leader who is ignorant; a government that is just satisfies people more than a government that is unjust. The Trojan war was ostensibly fought because of the beauty of one woman; the George Floyd protests are ongoing because Floyd's death triggered a pervasive sense of injustice. We have a pretense in the modern, liberal world that people are rational and thoughtful — a pretense we developed because 17th and 18th century philosophers decided that 'rationality' was a virtue (a 'good') that we should aspire to — but even rationality is motivated and underpinned by value judgements.
If our social and political worlds are driven by concepts like 'good', 'right', 'just', 'rational', and 'beautiful', then it would be useful to have a better understanding of what these terms mean: what concepts or objects they point to. That is what philosophers are trying to suss out.
I know that it's tempting to think of mathematics in purely abstract functional/structural terms, but it's important to remember that mathematics is always used in the service of value. Even something as simple as counting must be evaluated in terms of context: ten dollars is desirable; ten pimples are not. The ancient Greeks saw mathematics in aesthetic terms, from which we get the golden ratio that describe an aesthetic ideal for buildings and other structures, and the harmonic mean which was used to define intervals in musical scales. Even something as metaphorically scientific as 'rocket science' involves value judgements. Why should we do something as expensive, time consuming, and difficult as launching a probe to Saturn? What values does it satisfy that justifies those expenditures?
We cannot avoid the is/ought distinction. If we are trying to decide how to allocate the intellectual and material resources of our selves or our community, we don't generally do it on a coin-flip. So if we're going to be tangled up in 'oughts' as we move forward, we really ought to get a handle on the values and ideals that lie beneath them. So we really ought to try and define these value-specific terms.