Right now, the two topics I've come up with are the intellect of angels -and other beings- according to Averroës, and the concept of apatheia for a particular stoic or neo-stoic thinker (which often to me sound vaguely like existential ethics, but I'm not really familiar with either so that could be way off the wall). They are both very different topics, and very different than what usually interests me in my academic pursuits. I'm usually drawn to strange variations on Utilitarianism, Aristotle's take on the soul and emotion, and at a fairly basic level the sciences.

Personally, I always have problems with utilitarianism. It seems too mechanistic and prone to odd little abuses--very much the CIA's ethical theory; end justifies the means. Rule-utilitarianism is better but it still doesn't really work with my intuitions about what ethics is about. I'm more comfortable with Rawlsian justice theory.

Now, I am also agnostic and not religious so from a personal standpoint the best reason I can come up for my "purpose" for being here is that there no "purpose". Rather, I just exist and I might as well pursue my happiness as best I can. This meshes rather well with utilitarianism as I understand it.

So combining the two ideas above, I figure that my best chance at happiness is to try and work for a society that will best provide me with what I need for my personal happiness. Hence the idea that I must temper my purely utilitarian impulses (what's best for me) with a more enlightened view of my place in society (what's best for me in the grand scheme of things given that I live in a society).