"You ought to do A" logically entails "Do A" -- and "It's all right for you to do A" logically entails "You may do A."
"You ought to do A" logically entails "Do A" -- and "It's all right for you to do A" logically entails "You may do A."
Formal ethics is neutral on whether there's a logical entailment here.
If there IS an entailment, then ethical judgments relate very closely to imperatives and actions. Then "I ought to call a doctor to help a person who is bleeding" logically entails the imperative to call the doctor. And my belief that I ought to do this commits me, under pain of logical inconsistency, to acting accordingly.
"You ought to do A" logically entails "Do A" -- and "It's all right for you to do A" logically entails "You may do A."
Formal ethics is neutral on whether there's a logical entailment here.
If there ISN'T an entailment, then here's no logical inconsistency involved in saying "All things considered, you ought to do A; but don't do A" -- or in acting contrary to my ethical beliefs. One might still accept prescriptivity (as an imperative) and conscientiousness (as a way of life) -- but not on the basis of a logical entailment.