And even though you quoted my sentence you still didn't address my answer to this question.

Instead, you got hung up on defining "we". It should be abundantly clear: when one uses "we" in the context of talking about definitions being discussed in a text, the conventional interpretation--and the one I was using--is that "we" means "the author and their readers".

We don't need to do exactly what you ended up doing.

Let me try to be even more plain.

There are lots of conceptions of success that vary from ideology to ideology and from culture to culture. There are lots of conceptions of failure that also vary.

However, there are some conceptions of success that are, while perhaps not completely universal, are pretty close to it: things like people being pretty happy and in good condition. There are some conceptions of failure that are likewise nearly universal: things like starvation, torture, war (unless you're winning with few losses).

If you take issue with this, then I would turn the tables on you: please identify the group who identifies starvation and torture as good, and happiness and health as bad; and then explain to the rest of us why we should take these goals seriously.

If you can't do that, then we can safely neglect them.

I'm not saying that there are no conflicts that occur on different axes that the near-universal-good/near-universal-bad axis. Rather, if you consider a topic and you do get a strong signal along this axis, you should sit up and take notice. Not only is this probably a Big Deal, it is also a Big Deal behind which you have the potential to get a lot of support because almost everyone already agrees whether they recognize it or not. For instance, when someone gleefully announces, with a countenance that leads people to believe that they are serious, that they will murder and torture millions of people in order to, say, improve their business, family, and community, everyone else will tend to commit them to a psychiatric institution.

Now, reasonable people can disagree and discuss whether particular things may or may not lead to Big Deal outcomes. But I don't think reasonable people differ in what is a Big Deal as I've defined it in this post. In a way, it's almost definitional: "success" and "failure" as I defined it is restricted to what the overwhelming majority of people already agree on. (Since I am tailoring my writing to readers of Medium in English in 2023 and perhaps the near future beyond, I need not consider hypotheticals of an audience consisting entirely of sadistic cannibals.)