Here are some examples of unnecessary “big words”.
In a discussion whether morals do not need a religious deity but can be developed without religious interference it was stated:
” The telos of any moral action is ultimately the well-being of conscious creatures, or as defined by Anscombe's reworking of the Aristotelian concept of eudaimonia, "maximal human flourishing".
Now ”telos is defined as “purpose” and “eudaimonia” is basically “happiness” or “welfare” and Anscombe is a British analytic philosopher (1918-2001). To make the same point the writer could have said.:
“The goal of morals is ultimately the wellbeing of humans (as defined by Anscombe’s take on the Aristotelian idea of human welfare to the maximum extend possible) and would have been clear even if you leave of the bracketed part.
“Utilizing a two-level preference consequentialist framework, this provides an objective basis on which to judge a moral action, while also giving preference to a deontological approach in day-to-day affairs, or where the consequences of given action are not well-known.“
Which translated would look more like this:
“A moral action should be objectively judged by its consequence (outcome). Giving preference to the idea that normally, the correct behavior is more important than the consequence itself if the outcome is not well known”
I do not necessarily agree with the above statements but I used them to point out that “big Words” are not always necessary to express profound ideas. We should stick more to the KISS principle when we try to explain things. [ I presume you know what KISS stands for :-) ]