The problem is that ideals are aspirational, while good is elemental.

Even in math the reality isn't the abstraction. Consider a line, for example. It is one dimension, but it can't actually be one dimensional or it doesn't exist, since the other two dimensions being zero would make it a multiple of zero.

Or consider 1+1=2; The operation is a verb, so while you might argue adding two sets of one always makes one set of two, it doesn't exist in the void, as there is no action. Just like there is no cake, if you don't add the ingredients together.

Good is a binary with bad. Like yes and no. Asking what is the ideal good would be like asking what is the ideal yes.

Our deep cultural beliefs might be that good and bad are some cosmic conflict between the forces of righteousness and evil, but they are the basic biological binary of beneficial and detrimental. The 1/0 of sentience.

When we treat good as aspirational, rather than elemental, conflicts become a race to the bottom, as all the higher order complexity, nuance and subjectivity is suspect.

As these mobile organisms, we are constantly having to navigate our environment and make decisions, signals from the noise. So we are constantly having to pass judgement on the various aspects, but the reality tends to be circular, more rock, paper, scissors, than some ultimate finish line. So good and bad are necessarily subjective and relational, dare I say, relative, to any given context.

It is just that our aforementioned culture makes absolutist assumptions, but since the only real absolute is zero, where everything relational cancels out, we tend to end up in lots of senseless conflicts, when we should otherwise accept that differences are part of reality, or there would be nothing to chose between. Zero.