The TLGH knows what the morally right thing to do is -- it's hardwired. Figuring out morality is harder when you don't already have a moral arrow preset for you.

Knowledge requires justificaiton. A TLGH that understands epssiemology wouild see itslef as not knowing its TLG, since "it was hardwired into me" is no justification. This applies to humans: we are capable of dounting that our evolutionarily derived moral attitudes arre the correct ones.

Evolutionary psychology tells us that our evolutionary history has given us certain moral attitudes and behaviour. So far, so good. Some scientifically minded types take this to constitute a theory of objective morality all in itself. However, that would be subject to the Open Question objection: we can ask of our inherited morality whether it is actually right. (Unrelatedly, we are probably not determined to follow it, since we can overcome strong evolutionary imperatives in, for instance, voluntay celibacy). This not a merely abstract issue either, since EP has been used to support some contentious claims; for instance, that men should be forgiven for adultery since it is "in their genes" to seek muliple partners.

Any wondering about whether a TLGH did the right thing, by itself, will be rational-ought, not moral-ought.

And if there is any kind of objective truth about which goals are the true top level goals, that is going to have to come from reasoning. Emipricism fails because there are no perceivable moral facts, and ordinary facts fall into the is-ought divide.

Rationality is probably better at removing goals than setting them, better at thous-shalt-nots than thou-shalts That is in line with the liberal-secular view of morality, where it would be strange and maybe even obnoxious for everyone to be pursuing the same aim.