No. No, it would not.
We cannot even agree whether vigilantism is Lawful or Chaotic or neither, or whether prosecuting thought crimes is Evil or just sensible policy. I do not see how it is possible to make alignments unambiguous without reducing characters to paper-thin stereotypes. To avoid ambiguity, all gray areas must be avoided lest some special snowflake break his widdle bwain.
In any case, I see no problem with alignment ambiguity and declaring alignments, as Rich has done. Alignment isn't a straitjacket. If you have a problem with that, it's a problem that is baked into D&D in this edition. The problem of morality is one that philosophers have wrestled with since the word philosophy was invented. Good luck trying to write an unambiguously aligned Good character.