As Camus also said, the most important issue a philosopher should deal with, as he emphasized with the question of whether to drink a cup of coffee or commit suicide, is how a person should act. Camus's argument on this subject, as expressed in the myth of Sisyphus, is like this:

"Man is constrained to act.

In his conscious actions, he must determine which action to choose.

He needs justification to prefer one action over another.

No justification is ultimate.

Therefore, the preference for any action over another cannot be ultimately justified.

Consequently, we cannot ultimately ground the notion that any action is more correct or more valuable than another.

Hence, man is in a situation where he must make a choice despite being unable to ultimately justify which action he should choose, because the possibility of inaction does not exist.

Conclusion: Due to the impossibility of ultimate justification, the criterion for what and why man should act is not external reasons, but the individual himself. It is entirely a matter of choice.

Sisyphus can be imagined as either happy or sad, but these adjectives are not truth claims regarding Sisyphus's condition; they are matters of personal choice. Toward Sisyphus, an individual fosters a perspective parallel to how they view their own actions, which they are unable to ground."

Then my question is this: According to this understanding of Camus; if someone were to live a bad, harmful life while fully aware of what they are doing and accepting where it leads, like Caligula, for instance, would Camus advise against it? Why can't we think of Sisyphus as a bastard? Or is this not a correct understanding of Camus's thought?