Wow, that is quite a question! In fact it is one of those questions that I believe many people ask several times in their life without actually coming up with a coherent answer. Although I do not believe that I can give you full-fledged philosophical treatise on life in general (there is a reason I did not major in philosophy
), I can give you a brief explanation of my outlook on life and what I personally value.
Short Answer:
I personally value knowledge and the expansion of human frontiers. I am also an empathic person, which means in this context that I would like for others to have the same freedom to pursue knowledge and their talents that I currently enjoy. Therefore, I am supportive of actions and policies which promote the education of others, expands research and the acquisition of new knowledge, and helps anyone achieve their full potential.
I am currently employed as a college instructor where I can cultivate knowledge and a love of learning in the minds of others. I am glad to serve in a profession that is in compliance with my general philosophy on life.
Long Answer:
On morality in general:
I personally believe that morality is not objective in the philosophical meaning of the word. That is simply to say that I do not believe that morality has any permanence or concrete meaning outside the context of the personal value systems of human beings (or any other hypothetical sapient species.)
It is a common mistake for individuals to claim that their system (whether it be political, ethical, or social) is the TRUE way or is objectively better than all of the others, but I have always found these claims to be lacking. There are objective truths in the universe, like the universal gravitational constant for example, which can be confirmed experimentally again and again. Likewise, we can observe that human beings have the capacity to develop rules and social constructs. Some individuals (namely Sam Harris) take this logic to the extreme and claim that the fact that certain behaviors are selected for by natural selection in social species (altruism, empathy, etc) and certain outcomes are universally deemed to be undesirable (death, for example) that we can use science to determine objective morality. But what this view overlooks is the fact that just because a biological process selects for certain traits in terms of survival, that does not make those traits desirable in terms of morality. Whenever you start to ask questions about whether something is good or bad (or right or wrong) you are inherently making value judgments which are subjective to your observations and personal values.
To put it another way: you can use objective tools to find out whether an action is morally good or bad, but the parameters of what constitutes good and bad remains a subjective choice. One person may choose human happiness as a parameter for determining morality (utilitarianism), another person may choose his own well-being as the standard (enlightened egotism) and another may use a religious system as their standard. In the end, however, it all comes down to personal preference, and hence is not objective.
The most that we can do from the standpoint of morality is to determine those drives and motivations that are nearly universal (most individuals are capable of empathy for example, generally prefer to be happy as opposed to sad, and tend to be most happy when they are free to pursue their interests) and to make decisions that are based upon balancing the conflicting interests of those individuals in accordance with those near-universal traits. Is the resulting system objective as per the philosophical definition - no. But it is useful and it is in fact how most human decisions are actually made, regardless of the moral sentiments that may be outwardly expressed.
On my moral views:
I am personally partial to preference utilitarianism as a system of ethics. It is different than classical utilitarianism (which defines right actions as those that maximize pleasure and minimize pain) in that preference utilitarianism promotes actions that fulfill the interests of sapient beings. Since in preference utilitarianism the source of both morality and ethics is subjective preference, there can be no act that is in itself always good or bad. The goodness or badness of an action is dependent on the state of the system in which it is performed. Although this system still has unresolved questions as a philosophical matter, I find it to be the most practical system that matches my views concerning ethics and morality.
On my personal values:
I have always enjoyed learning new things and using that knowledge to expand my frontiers. To put it another way: I have always found that as my knowledge base grows, so does my capacity for understanding myself in the greater scheme of things. I have had many moments in my life when I found out a new piece of information and as a result my view of my place in the universe changed greatly. This happened when I first learned about natural selection, for example, and it also occurred when I first learned what the stars actually were and how distant they were from Earth. These discoveries filled me with a great sense of wonder and an intense desire to learn more about the world in general. They not only changed what I knew, but to a great extent they changed me as well - by changing my overall worldview.
In studying history in high school and in college, I discovered that humankind also went through these great transformations of worldview when certain discoveries were first made and widely circulated. For example, the discovery of how to harness steam power led to rapid industrialization, which then led to a change in how Western cultures viewed time from a circular and seasonal cycle, to a highly-regimented linear entity. Industrialization also lead to changes in family relations, the relationship between the makers of products and the means of production, the state and private citizens, and every other facet of life. It isn't so much the discoveries themselves that led to these changes, but rather it is how we readjust our view of ourselves that changes society. Since I have a deep seated sense of empathy, I wanted to share the knowledge that I have gained with other people. The knowledge that I share as an instructor to a classroom of students may not have an overall transformational effect on society, but if I can expand just one person's view of the world then it will have all been worthwhile.
Final thoughts:
With myself placing a high value on personal knowledge and freedom, having a strong sense of empathy, and basing my subjective morality upon the promoting of these personal values, it is no wonder that I am currently in the position that I am today. Whether I continue teaching, eventually find myself in research, or take another path entirely, I will continue to promote my personal values in whatever small way that I can.
