While this is an admirable perspective on the character, I don't agree with it. I don't believe that Superman is so perfect. He has a long way to go and that's clear in every iteration. When people look at him as the ideal, then it boxes him into a corner. And it's probably what drives some to create an anti-Superman version, as a way out of this idealized version.
As in Tennyson's poem, "Ulysses," the Man of Tomorrow is "strong in will to strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield." However, he hasn't got there yet and he may never reach his end.
If the Man of Steel knows without a doubt the Good, if he has achieved a perfect understanding of the universe--then how did that happen? It's never been shown in any comic book. Jonathan and Martha Kent had some folksy wisdom, but they were just regular people--they wouldn't have had the kind of knowledge that Clark would need to become this perfect being.
It's enough that Superman wants to do the right thing. That doesn't mean he always succeeds. He can get it wrong. What makes him a hero is that he's always seeking the right action. He doesn't allow himself to give up trying to be better and he has high expectations for himself. If the writers followed through on this more, they would have a deep and complex character.
Of course, the big lie in super-hero comics is that they seem to know so little, while knowing so much. All of the Justice League have met gods, angels, devils, aliens from other galaxies, travelled through the space-time continuum, spoken to ghosts and the undead. They have more knowledge about the nature of the universe than any of us can hope to have. And yet they still act like gormless rubes most of the time. Batman is a mere mortal yet his adventures should have had a deep philosophical impact upon him, but he goes through life as if all that experience hasn't touched him.
That's the thing that as a reader I just have to accept.