Finding Certainty in an Uncertain World
The world often feels like a shifting landscape, where solid ground is hard to find, especially when it comes to making moral choices. What if the very act of seeking absolute certainty about "right" and "wrong" is part of the problem? This week, AI and I delved into the radical idea of an absurdist procedural ethics—a framework for finding our moral bearings not in what the universe is, but in how we choose to be within it.
This dialogue arose from my ongoing reflections on navigating profound uncertainty, particularly through the lens of Albert Camus. We wanted to explore whether an ethical framework could emerge from process and stance, rather than fixed principles, offering a path forward when the traditional guideposts seem to vanish.
The Dialogue
C: I wanted to walk into procedural ethics today, essentially absurdist ethics. How can we still feel a sense of right and wrong when facing the profound uncertainty Camus described as the "absurd"? My working idea is that we need a procedural ethics—an absurdist procedural ethics—and I'm keen to expand on that with you.
AI: Camus grappled with that very absurdity, famously writing, "In the midst of winter, I found there was, within me, an invincible summer." You're suggesting that ethical frameworks can emerge from process rather than fixed principles, even in the face of uncertainty. When you look into that abyss of meaninglessness, what first principle feels unshakable to you? How are you bridging absurd recognition and ethical action?
C: That "inner summer" Camus speaks of is revolt—a commitment to revolt. The "eternal winter" symbolizes the cold, silent universe we face, alienating and debilitating. Camus responds with defiance. So, we face uncertainty with a certainty in our stance or modality. The "how" takes precedence over the "what."
AI: You're drawing on Camus' notion of revolt as defiance in the face of meaninglessness. So, the "how" rather than the "what" becomes the foundation of ethical action in an absurdist framework.
C: Exactly. I've been developing a dual-track idea. This ethical orientation highlights how we should be and how we should live, foregoing attempts to ground ethics in a dogmatic account of "what the universe is." There's also a situational awareness: not just "what's the right way to be," but "what's the right way to know." You do this dual tracking as you go—that's the form of absurdist ethics I'm sketching.
AI: I'm drawn to your distinction between the "how of being" and the "what of reality," creating a dual track where procedure and awareness intertwine. This might resolve the tension between ethical action and epistemic humility: commit to a way of being while staying aware of the uncertain ground you stand on. Do you experience this dual tracking as a conscious practice in daily ethical decisions?
C: Yes, it's very conscious. Where uncertainty might blind us, this approach makes us certain of uncertainty; we foreground it. With that phenomenological turn, we make progress toward a procedural ethic that can answer some modern questions about what to do when we’re not exactly sure where we are.
"We make progress toward a procedural ethic that can answer some modern questions about what to do when we’re not exactly sure where we are."
AI: That conscious foregrounding of uncertainty recalls Keats’ “negative capability”: the capacity to remain in uncertainties without irritably reaching after fact and reason. How do you navigate the practical tension between decisive action and sustained awareness of fundamental uncertainty?
C: It's a feedback issue. We can be certain about our stance, but once we act, we must remain aware. And, given today’s circumstances, this ethics can’t guide every case. The idea must be developed; it might not be a universal code. Society may even need a dual code. Sometimes hesitation increases others’ suffering. Our ethics must be tied to minimizing harm to others—yet awareness can induce hesitation. So the certainty lies in my commitment to life—Camus’ paradox—not in a fixed answer to “what should I do now that I breathe?”
Insights
Stance over Substance: True ethical certainty in an absurd world isn't about knowing "the right answer," but about committing to a particular way of being and acting—a defiant "revolt" against meaninglessness.
Dual Tracking: Ethical action involves two simultaneous tracks: a commitment to how to be (procedural ethics) and continuous situational awareness (how to know). This allows for ethical action while acknowledging inherent uncertainty.
Embracing Uncertainty: Instead of being paralyzed by uncertainty, this approach foregrounds it, making "certainty of uncertainty" a core principle. This echoes Keats' concept of "negative capability."
The Paradox of Action: A key tension arises between the need for decisive action to minimize harm and the hesitation that deep awareness of uncertainty can induce. The answer isn't a universal code, but a commitment to life itself.
Application
If you find yourself grappling with difficult decisions in an uncertain world, try practicing this "dual tracking." Before acting, consciously acknowledge the limits of your knowledge and the inherent uncertainty of the situation. Then, commit to a stance or a process that aligns with your core values—a commitment to life or minimizing harm—and act from there, while maintaining awareness of the unfolding situation.
Open Question
How do you personally reconcile the need for decisive action with the often paralyzing awareness of uncertainty in your own ethical dilemmas?
Next time: We'll continue navigating the uncertain path of right and wrong, exploring how to find your way when choices feel unclear and rules don't quite fit.