What is obvious and wrong for one is not necessarily so for the other. Those who believe themselves to be on the safe side (certainty in the definition of language) want to believe themselves equally certain in the preference of their ideas as well as dislike of the ideas of others and mix definition with the same ideas, wishes and hopes. If it were not so, one would not want to refer to a sovereignty of definition.
The individual retains the ultimate sovereignty of definition by either accepting the given definition or rejecting it. A clear boundary between the given or the challenged definition cannot exist permanently in time and space because otherwise all original definitions would never change, they would remain fixed in it. The fact is that they are not. For example, if muting were perceived by a relevant number of people as censorship, even though by definition it is not, the more powerful group appropriates its own definition and negates that of the less powerful group. This can then quite possibly be understood as consensus, and where this consensus remains for a certain period of time, the modified definition enters into sovereignty. The sovereignty of definition marks an ideal, an orientation for certainty.
This is what is meant by the comparison of the Christian Ten Commandments and Buddhist discipline. They are basically a paradox. To put it exaggeratedly, the only certainty is that one cannot be certain of anything. Truthfully, one would then have to answer, "Although I suffer from certain delusions and denials, I am not mistaken." HaHa! A paradox!
To which one might reply, "Only the madman has no doubt". But it would indeed be correct to say that although you might be mistaken, you nevertheless intend to hold fast to the action you are willing to perform and advocate. With a price tag stuck on.
If I were to ask you if you were certain of your own delusions and denials and what exactly they were, and you were able to answer me clearly, they would no longer be delusions and denials at that moment, would they? You would then have a Catch22.
Against this backdrop, it makes perfect sense to keep in mind one's own suppressed ideas of a better world, or to try to get to the bottom of them, otherwise I run the risk of casting the first stone.
I don't see where throwing stones has been crowned with great success in human history. Morally convicted perpetrators in the upper echelons seem to have got away with their deeds as good as ever, apart from peasant victims, since they have not been convicted before the law. They have not, and not only do they see that they used lies or deception, but can assume that anyone who accuses them has some dirt on them themselves. Because "all men are sinners".
But what if I realise that I cannot possibly follow the rules to the letter and that I can never fully rely on definitions? Isn't this paradox one of the most important insights I can have?
Does it mean that I, knowing that I cannot, murder my grandmother and rape little children? That I, aware of my weaknesses, from now on use this as a free ticket?
Ideas aren't an opinion, or preference, they are either sound or not, and that is ascertained by testing them, by debating them. If you cannot find agreement on definition there's absolutely no point in doing so. If you must conform definition to your position, to shape them to your liking why not form your own terms with their own definitions. You want to bastardize language, to make it in your image, fine, may you find agreement then.
It's certain that peace of mind is a benefit. It's certain that the largest charity comes through church and temples.
A paradox isn't significant, or 100 paradoxes even.
There's things that are true, and false at the same time. There's also things which are neither!
No new definitions need apply, just boring affirmative or negatives. How can you root out delusion and denial but by insight born from honest self inquiry?
The rules like definitions are pointers, pointers for your direction.
You'll have a "free ticket" only as long you get away with it. If you see rules as an obstacle, you'll treat them as such, and traversing obstacles comes with its risks.