Morals are just behavioral prescriptions carried out by some entity, a moral carrier. For a behavioral prescription to be valid, it must have a moral carrier. No moral carrier means no behavioral prescription. If we take descriptive statements that are valid at end-time as objectively true, then prescriptive statements that are valid at end-time must also be objectively true. Objective morality exists in the eternal perpetuation of its own moral carriers. A moral that dies is not moral.
It seems to me that there's no such thing as an "is-ought" problem since the "ought" is the "is" or it "isn't" at end-time. Does this objectivity give credence to moral relativism as well, then, since different moral carriers are not just in their own respective environments but they're each carrying their own morals? All of their "oughts" are "are" for the present moment, at least.
I am very attracted to the above line of thinking, since it passes the commonsense test, so is my desire to believe there's morality causing me to miss something?