‘There is no answer to the question, „Why not be cruel?” There is no noncircular theoretical backup for the belief that cruelty is horrible.’ (Richard Rorty). Do you agree?

I'm still not sure where to put myself.
In terms of descriptive ethics, there seems to be a common core that different belief groups agree is bad/undesirable/not admirable, which maybe fits something like 'harmony' or 'empathetic cooperation'.

I'm also not entirely sure Hume's guillotine is all that safe. That's because I'm not sure that there's non normative reason - one can describe our brains as made of 'proto-normative' neurons that fire lots with "good" inputs, and shun "bad" inputs - which in a sense would make all our reasoning a bit normative.

Part of me thinks that we shouldn't need a non moral reason to be moral - if that makes any sense.

Couldn't the answer to "why be moral?' just be "because it's the (morally) right thing to do" - should we expect or need a non moral reason to be moral? So maybe if that's circular, in this one instance i'm not uncomfortable being circular...