Does the phrase "ought to" express the irrelevance of the person taking the action? For example, if someone says "Governments which are just, ought to ensure food security for their citizens", are they specifically saying certain governments ought to do so, or is the sentence expressing that governments which are just, in general, ought to do so, as in a generic statement that doesn't express the relevance of the person/entity taking the action?
Taken in isolation, the sentence is a general statement about all governments which are just.
However, it might be used on a context that makes it clear that it's condemning a particular government that does not meet this standard. Read the Declaration of Independence, for instance. It makes a number of general statements about the appropriate relationship between a government and the citizenry. It's not until well into the document that it specifically mentions King George. This makes it clear that the earlier statements about what a government should do were intended to refer to the English government.