I agree with all of what you wrote.

I have spent many years looking at this idea of clarity until it stopped being an idea and became an actualization. As you have suggested, true clarity is devoid of all thought (including memories, ideas, judgments, etc.) . But this gets slightly off track from your original focus, which is morality.

The problem, as we know, is how human beings are able to define morality by way of convenience, so the question to be answered is whether there is a morality that is devoid of judgment or perspective, which are artifacts of the egoic self. I feel that there is such a morality and it is rooted in unconditional compassion. Therefore, to address the first thing you wrote in your answer, I would say that morality doesn't actually arise, but rather that it is always present in the form of compassion and becomes apparent when all else is stripped away.

The naturalistic fallacy is an interesting one to ponder, because we come back to the same idea as morality, which is "good." All roads seem to lead to Rome in this case — compassion, morality, good, clarity, and love. I would perhaps make one slight distinction, however, which is that I am not talking about that which is conditioned or affected by thought. There are countless examples, but I would boil this down to the difference between acting out of clarity rather than acting out of self interest (the self doing the acting).