Ought to help surely means having good reasons to help. Yet if the snow ought to melt that does not mean it has good reasons to melt. So maybe we should talk about what an ought means in relation to actions and agents.
The argument that God owns morality or somehow is morality tells us that God loving the person is reason enough to help them.
That comes across as callous. If you are in pain you want people to help simply because you are in pain and it is not about what a God thinks or does not think.
Whatever morality is grounded in it is not God and must not be.
The other point I will make in relation to that is helping has to involve trying to feel warm about the person helped. Feelings heal. Friendliness in the doctors and nurses matters as much if not more than the medicine. I know there is a placebo but it is more than that. Your body heals better if you feel safe and feel important. If people who detest you are helping you, you fear that soon it will get too much for them and soon they will lash out or walk away. Christianity is very clear that love means sacrificing for the other no matter if you feel warm to them or you cannot stand them. The excuse it is we all have weakness and may never be able to cherish the other or cherish at least when they need us to. Unpack the teaching. It is about looking good more than being good.
Having good reasons to help means you also have good reasons to refrain from what is unhelpful and harmful. The yes side means a no side is there.
Yet all who do harm or evil hold that they did indeed have reasons not to harm, but say they also had good reasons for doing it.
The argument that evil is just wanton and irrational goes against that. You cannot talk to stupidity and insanity. If evil is both of these and so is the evildoer then by speaking out you are only discouraging the person from doing something good instead of harmful.
Unnecessary harm against a human being would be seen as evil and irrational.
But if there is a good God you increase how evil and irrational it would be. It is off the scale. Now you have to consider the malice and arrogance it throws in his face. And the pride.
So God belief if God is a lie or if God does not care makes the conversation worse. We do see believers taking action against harms and evil. But if they threw the God obstacle out they would do this better and more of them would act.
People want to tell a Hitler, “You ought to have protected lives not destroy them. You had no reason to.”
That will not do. A bad reason is still a reason and may look convincing enough to get the person to harm.
It is saying, “Oh you should not do this because I say so. How great I must be that my message should change you. How bad you are if you don’t listen to me for I am so special.” If your belief in God is behind that then you are dishonest for not saying so. Do you think you speak for God? Do you think that God will give your words the uncanny power to influence? Do you think your advice is a spell of some kind, working its magic to change the person? If he or she does not change, are you now going to see them as people who got this wonderful amazing influence through you and resisted it? You cannot use a tragic act to stoke up your religious or occult notions. That is going to help nobody. Even the bad person does not need to hear you.
We are told that Jesus wanted people when hit to absorb evil. He didn't say that. He merely said that if somebody hits you on the cheek to turn the other. A good teacher tells you why but he just commanded turning the other cheek. That is a red flag. It is abuse to tell somebody to do that without being clear on why. Why is he not saying, "Step back." Yet the argument from Christians is that he is not saying to be a pushover. He is saying to turn the other cheek to show that you are not going to escalate the situation. Try telling that to the person who gets hit on the other cheek then. The bully is only hitting for he sees the other as a good target. Turning the other cheek only confirms what he thinks. Or he could see it as provocation. If you hit somebody and they do that it is no better than saying, "Go on do that again. Make yourself look like an wild man."
The notion that Jesus had only the degrading practice of hitting somebody with the back of your hand on the cheek to communicate contempt rather than to be violent in mind is just a rationalisation. He said hitting. We don't know if he was thinking of hitting as mere insult. Or if that was happening much in his experience of life. The sensible view is that he meant hitting as in violence. Hitting as an insult is both violence and insult.
One answer is that Jesus was telling people to ignore attacks for the world was about to change miraculously and come to an end and justice would be done by God directly. This would make him an irresponsible false prophet.
The fact is that Jesus did not check over this report of his teaching. The passive-aggressive streak could be his. Or it could be the writer's. Or both.
Shockingly, occult circles have argued that turning the other cheek absorbs the evil in another and vanquishes it and sends good energy into the bad person to sow the seeds of change. It is a spell.
LEARN:
Moral oughts backfire. The bad person senses hypocrisy in the self-appointed moral advisor. To be helped for a God makes you feel used. And especially if you are unconvinced that there is a God or that the person really values God at other times. Christianity says that though we are all vile towards God, he cleans us and gives us the right to a fresh start so we can correct somebody for doing evil though we have done it ourselves. It cannot ask the doubter or the unbeliever to affirm that the person judging or advising has a right to. Moral oughts claim that evil is insanity and stupidity and irrationality and that stops understanding and listening. It is luck if a person hears good advice and changes. It is just luck.
NOTE: The fine-tuning argument for a maker who made the insanely unlikely happen, that the universe would be right for life to appear, is doubtful when the maker failed to organise and include a coherent sense of morality. We don't have the protection of the moral law. You could say that there is enough to suspend judgement on the fine-tuning being real even if it seems to be. Or that the maker just wants life to appear and doesn't care if it is good for us or bad.