Clarity or ambiguity aren’t absolute in storytelling because literature is a participative process.
Looking up the etymology of the word “literature” I find interesting things:
_Great literature is simply language charged with meaning to the utmost possible degree. [Ezra Pound, “ABC of Reading”]_
which sheds some light.
Interestingly, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literariness focuses on form such as meter and rhythm to distinguish between literary and non-literary texts. So from a point of view of literariness, the distinction between literature and non-literature would be amoral, which is contradiction to Ezra Pound’s view of what Great literature is.
My opinion, as stated briefly above is participatory with any morality or amorality or a “choose-your-own-morality” as a function of the process of engaging with the literature in the here-and-now and the forensic analysis that follows. Connections to socio-historical contexts in that case adds to the depth and breadth of analysis but I think that ultimately a piece of literature does not carry morality within it, whatever the intentions of the author but rather are a product of the individual participant who may ALSO be a participant in “the age” in which the reader is participating in the literature-ingesting/considering process.
So for example: Will a college student in 1973 read Shakespeare in the same way as a university student in 1815 or in 2040? Will the same lessons be drawn, the same analysis used, the same minds set upon the words?