Our lifespans are short.
We work with limited information.
This information can be partially verified back only a few generations and includes our own verification.
Then, we die.
Inbetween, we live.
It is in the limited inbetween that we CAN in fact judge right vs wrong as we do not have access to much else.
Choosing not to judge is also a choice.
We can judge anything within our purview.
Whether we SHOULD judge anything within our purview or if we should INSTEAD not judge certain things but freely judge other things, is part of normative ethics..
It’s not empty but prescriptive. Goal oriented, outcome focused..
You chose uncertainty as your stance. It’s as valid as any other choice you can make in this realm.
True is what consistently calculates to an effective result. Valid is weaker, calculating to “a result’. But as there are much fewer “true” and many more “valid but uncertain”, going with “valid but uncertain” is usually as close to true as is usually possible.
Just to be more clear I’m not arguing against your points but reinforcing.
I don’t think it is possible to make a Universal call. So scrapping that notion is fine.
But I don’t think you need to throw out all normative ethics because it can’t be made absolutely universal.
A good example of pragmatic ethics is that which is adopted within nursing professions, where unique situations arise with absolutely no solid precedent to fall back upon that mimics it.
So what do you do? How do you chose right and wrong decisions?
You work within the context of the situation as an isolated pocket dimension where within which the math checks out, even if it may not check out in the larger universe.
So, for example: “Is every life worth saving?” It is, from a “life is not an economic factor and is inherently valuable” point of view.
But… reality strikes. Economic factors weigh in. Time is short. Resources low. What to do?