I am an agnostic, as in I do not believe in anything without proof or evidence, which makes me also defacto non-religious despite being brought up (but not too much) as a Roman Catholic Christian until my teenage years.
I think if life had a meaning we would not be free, as we would be constrained by that meaning, and hence usually I tend towards indeterminism. I tend to think my current ethical framework to be based out of insights related to my studies especially Boetius de Dacia, Meister Eckart, Spinoza, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, and especially^2 for Epictetus and Karl Jaspers.
I think our ontological and metaphysical understanding of reality is more correctly framed as phenomenological in the Husserlian sense. I also believe practicality and theoretical minimalism should always take precedence in a rational endeavour: if the purpose of a theory is covered then we should not add concepts without any clear benefit or significant insight. This I think should also be the case in relation to scientific development and scientific theories, with of course the needed margins for the proper growth of science without stagnation.
I'm mostly geared towards a society where property is viewed in the Proudhonian sense that is must be occupied or visibly used to be considered private (productive) property, and if abandoned ownership would cease on said abandonment. This comes from the view of the natural world (i.e Earth) as a commons from which property derives only by being used or occupied with the recognition from the community of such a occupation or usage.
This falls within what is mostly understood today as a form of mutualist anarchism and I am a kind of socialist-not-marxist-minarchist/anarchist.
In practical matters due to the fact we need to live in a different world from the one we wanted, this means mostly:
- I believe that existence, identity, self-ownership, and sexual and romantic self-determination are inalienable rights: yes the need to explicitly say that existence is an inalienable right in the 21st century (or even anytime) is beyond reason but still we have come to that point.
- I think the bare minimum for any modern society is free and equal access to health, education, justice, and protection.
- I think we ought to reduce the state machinery to the bare minimum needed for it to provide the bare minimum by introducing concepts like negative income tax to reduce complexity in social benefits and taxation.
- I don't think land should be owned without the society extracting benefits and support Georgist-like taxation schemes.
- I think all political decisions need to be informed by scientific claims and that neither religion nor ideology should override that.
- Birthplace, physical characteristics, self-identity, or any abstract concepts like nationality or race should not grant or deny privilege to any individual.
- I believe social and market interactions need to respect explicit consent.
- I think wars should be fought by politicians and generals, but since that is not the world we live in I support the right of every individual to defend themselves by any means against wars of aggression and invasion.
- And of course I will not support nor defend any illogical, illegitimate, or unscientific claims. With exception that I might listen to those specific crazy ufo people that don't harm anyone else and whom I see as a kind of living personified science fiction pulp story.
Note mostly for people in US/UK/Canada: what is usually understood as very left-leaning policies in your place are most likely less than what is usually the bare minimum for social protections in Portugal (my country) for any party (right, left, centers).
I also share most of the ideals surrounding co-ops and mutual organizations for social benefits.