Architecture as a Value System

Something I've thought about occasionally, but haven't stopped and given due consideration, is my value system as it pertains to architecture.  Not that I don't have one, but I believe it's still forming and largely unspecific.  During class discussion on 1/21/14, what struck me most was how very passionate some of the opinions got when the subject matter was mostly generalization.  We weren't using examples, at least in the beginning, but it was still evident that some of the participants in the discussion had very clear ideas about was or was not architecture, or whether a given building was good or bad architecture.  I have my own opinions, so I don't mean to say that like it's a bad thing.  Rather, it interested me how visceral some of the reactions were.  The topic for discussion was about making money vs sticking to your values in regards to what makes "good" architecture.  I guess I didn't have much of an opinion because I took a realistic approach to the topic.  As an architect employed at a "typical" firm, you aren't going to have much say in what projects your firm accepts, and often, you may not have the luxury of choosing.  What you do have control over is exerting yourself to design to the best of your ability.  Apart from finding employment at a firm that caters exclusively to the type of work you prefer to do, really the only alternative is starting your own design firm where you have the freedom to accept certain types of jobs, assuming you can stay financially viable.  I guess the question is, how important is it to you that you only receive jobs from clients who have high design in mind?  In my opinion, that's a luxury, and you have to mediate it by pushing the envelope no matter what project you may be working on.