It is quite a challenging topic and thank you for acknowledging my attempt and I apologize I was not able to present it as clearly as I wished I could. Hopefully this time will be clearer, however if not please let me know as I will continue working on understanding and explaining my idea better.
I am suggesting that in everyday language, people make assumptions all the time. For example, when someone says "you," they assume that they are referring to the person they are talking to; when someone says "up," they assume that it means away from gravity; and when someone says "kind," they assume that it means a desirable emotional trait. I am highlighting the fact that language conveys both explicit and implicit meanings. People often focus on the implicit meaning, such as when they value a product review for its implicit intentions rather than its explicit words. For instance, if a competitor writes a negative review, they may view the implicit meaning as an attempt to reduce competition, whereas if a customer writes a negative review, they may assume it's because they disliked the product. However, relying on implicit meanings can lead to misunderstandings because it is subjective and not explicitly stated. Furthermore, when someone says, "that's good," it's unclear what exactly they mean. "Good" means a benefit towards something, but it doesn't specify what it benefits. There is an implicit accepted meaning that it benefits the individual, but this is not always the case. Others may accept it as an implicit benefit towards themselves, which can lead to miscommunication. In everyday language, people often use implicit meanings and accept ambiguous contexts because they think they understand the intentions behind them. However, when engaging in complex philosophical debates, ambiguity can lead to subjective interpretation and miscommunication.
To demonstrate ambiguity, let me give some real examples. The question "is equality good", there are infinite interpretations of what they mean. Do they mean equality of outcome, opportunity, financial income, happiness, or something else? Furthermore, if they are for equality in any of these categories, they could mean different things - for example, they might want to level everyone down to the lowest level, or bring everyone up to the highest level, or raise everyone to the median level. The topic is complex and has many variations, including negative interpretations, such as leveling everyone down to the lowest level for the sake of equality. When asked if equality is good or bad, the question itself is flawed and raises many other questions. The ambiguity is so high that we could never hope to answer it. Instead, we should ask properly formulated questions that address specific aspects of equality. For example, we could ask if they are for raising everyone to an equal financial income level, with the implication that they want to raise people up, rather than bring them down or make everyone average. Additionally reminding yourself that good means to benefit towards something what are they referring that equality could be good towards government, individuals, groups; and for each one of those it could mean financial income, happiness, protection, support. In other words, the question is equality good is an oversimplification to which causes more questions than answers and is more problematic than helpful. When a question becomes more problematic than helpful you know that you have oversimplified the question.
Consider this oversimplified question: "Are good and evil interconnected or independent?" While some may believe that this is a more direct question than "Can good exist without evil?", even this more direct form of the question remains ambiguous. Morality encompasses several sub-aspects, including the morality of intent and the morality of outcome. These sub-aspects refer to whether the morality of intent and outcome are interconnected or independent. Additionally, morality can be viewed in several different ways, including deontology, utilitarianism, virtue ethics, moral relativism, and moral absolutism, each providing a unique perspective on evaluating and determining what is right or wrong. With so many different understandings of what is right and wrong, how can we determine whether good and evil are interconnected or independent? Only by removing ambiguity and forming a properly interpretable question can we arrive at a definitive answer.
In summary, this can be likened to the scene in Jurassic Park when Ian Malcolm says, "Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether they could, they didn't stop to think if they should." Similarly, people often become so fixated on finding an answer that they fail to consider whether they have asked the right question, and when a question is improperly formed and has ambiguity controversial debate with no seeming agreement is always sure to follow.