Values was a big operative word a few years ago.  Religious leaders pounded on the theme of values as the key to our daily existence.  While I agree with the fact that there needs to be a fundamental basis for one's actions, values seem to me the wrong word choice.  To me values are transient fads, based on base principles but subject to the on rush of trend, cultural expediency, and the direction of the wind.  I believe that principles, while seemingly identical to values, is the better and more permanent word.  It implies a dynamic and living yet also implies permanent personal philosophy.

The main difference is that principles are often and necessarily challenged by those who try to live by their principles.  Those that can withstand the test of time are principles, values are those that wanders with the onrush of time.  All too often, people will stand by their values as if they were principles, the key is that they will cling to the values and not challenge the premise or the underlying belief of the value.  This zealotry in homogeneous thought leads to dogmatism and has led the human civilization into intractable wars and ponderous institutions like organized religion and major political parties.  As history has shown, zealotry serves no one positively in the long term.  it may give some the justification short term for acting selfishly, but it serves humankind adversely in almost all instances. 

On the other hand, a nihilistic view of guiding structure and wisdom creates chaos and confusion.  Not believing in anything is believing in nothing.  While relativism serves a great role in philosophical thought experiemntation, and does reveal a certain amount of truth, a moral system based on constantly changing foundations mean inpermanence and volatility of the moral center.

So it seems that a firm walk down the middle of the extremes would be the wisest and safest route.  Yet the adherence to the middle also becomes zealotry and dogma in and of itself. 

Whoever said life was easy.