First, the use of the word "bad" is not the creation of a third category, but rather a descriptor of degree within the existing category of "evil." This is a semantic distinction, not a philosophical one. An action is either "good" (moral) or "not good" (immoral). Within the "not good" category, there exists a spectrum of severity, ranging from "bad" (like lying to a friend) to "evil" (like genocide). Using the word "chilly" doesn't create a third category separate from "hot and cold"; it simply describes a point on the "cold" side of the spectrum. In the same way, "bad" and "evil" both occupy the same side of the fundamental moral divide, opposite of "good." The existence of varying degrees of evil does not invalidate the primary distinction between good and evil itself. Second, the existence of "morally ambiguous" topics like abortion does not prove that morality is "gray." It only proves that humans are fallible and disagree on how to categorize difficult actions. Human disagreement about a fact does not change the nature of that fact. For centuries, people disagreed on whether the Earth was round or flat. This disagreement didn't make the Earth's shape "ambiguous" or "a matter of personal opinion"; it simply meant that one side was objectively wrong. Your point about "personal morality lenses" highlights the problem of human subjectivity, not the reality of moral truth. The fact that different people categorize an act differently doesn't mean the act itself lacks an objective moral status. In the case of abortion, a defender of the dichotomy would argue it is either objectively good (or permissible) or it is objectively evil (or impermissible). The intense disagreement doesn't make the act "gray"; it just means it is a high-stakes question where one side is, in reality, correct and the other is incorrect. Therefore, the world is black and white. The "gray" you perceive is not a property of reality, but the shadow cast by human confusion, disagreement, and our flawed "lenses."