I believe it is important to think about ethics. Unfortunately, most people won’t read about it at all. I want to introduce people to ethics, show them some basic concepts. That’s why I made this infographic.
I hope you like it. If you feel like it can be improved in any way, please do tell me.
Feel free to share this picture, so my effort was not in vein.
I couldn’t help but noticing that the second priority states that all MEN are equal in your country. After that, all “men and women” [in the world] are equal. … Hmm… 
But I didn’t see my personal version of ethics foundation represented in there anywhere… …?
I base mine on pure rationality (logical rationed steps toward the highest possible goal).
Nice graphic! Welcome to the board. 
If I made an info-graphic it would be like so;
Individual sphere [at the centre]; pertaining to all individuals as concerns only them, or what is more important as concerns the individual over the group.
Relative sphere; family and other such groups e.g. nationality, business empire or what have you.
Universal sphere; what’s right over and above either or both other sphere’s.
A balancing rod, showing that no sphere has absolute dominion, its all a matter of balance.
Finalised with the statement; ‘the ethic does not exist until the situation arises’ [samarai saying] or ‘every landscape has its own vocabulary’ [my saying].
.
Social contract; if I were a woman in iran firstly I would argue for the removal of shariah law, if the law itself is the law [as in this case] then I cannot change any part of it!
If (as I believe you indicated in another thread, but I may not have understood) the primary value is longevity/self-perpetuation, that would come under Egoism.
I did that “All men in my country” to point out that a lot of people only apply ethics on the people that live in their own country. I want to show those who actually think about their own country that it is hard to justify you moral cicle being that small.
I think your ethical foundation is not really an ethical foundation, since you have no axioms. All the theories I have pointed out in my graphic are axioms, which mean you can use logic (pure rationality) to justify an act, once you accept any of these axioms. For example: I am a consequentialist (utilitarian), I believe that the goodness of an act is measured by it’s consequences. Happiness is good, suffering is bad. Those are my axioms. Now, if I wonder: is it morally defensible to eat cultured meat? I will have to weigh the happiness I gain from eating it to the suffering it inflicted upon the animal. Now if my extra happiness outweighs the suffering of the animal, that act can be morally justified. If the suffering weighs more heavily than my extra happiness, the act of eating cultured meat is morally indefensible. You see? I used pure rationality, but I also used one axiom, consequentialism.