Core Values that are being employed here are those that are irreducible, and not expressed in the form of rules. Freedom is a value. Equality is a value. We will tell the truth in all situations is a very dubious rule. Culture, as previously mentioned, is about things like arts and crafts, fashion, folk customs, and ethical values should be kept outside it as entirely as possible. Pragmatism in the sense of practicality is a value.

There appears to be a useful broad definition of the term Goods in economics. Ultimately ethics relates to the way we use these goods, including ourselves. Culture is perhaps the principal Good we have in a stable society. Its difference from other Goods is that it is what defines people in their community, differently from other communities. It is the basis of Diversity, which may be considered a prime value. How we value or undermine diversity is a prime feature of ethical choice.

A survivalist community requires only a minimal ethic. Anything more, if badly constructed, may be dangerous. Vegans do not survive where there is only meat. A survival ethic would be similar to the well known Decalogue. Not to later offshoots of more sophistication that may not be understood even today. It is where society evolves and affluence makes niceties possible that something more than our current binary or single-dimension model is possible, and even required.

It is my contention, that simple values are such, because they do not actually exist, other than as concepts. On the other hand, compound values do exist as forms of or expressions of society, or community, or personal relationships.

To answer my own question. The opposite of simple is compound. It my firm contention that there are simple values, which are therefore opposed to compound values. They are also as everyone would understand opposed in meaning.

Food is not a value. But it is efficacious for keeping us alive. There would be no ethical values without sapient creatures such as ourselves being alive. But it is in life that ethics exists. Naturally, most people in health wish to be alive so as to enjoy it. Life as against chaos and extinction may be considered the bedrock of ethics. The interesting question is how we define ethics from that point forward. That requires a knowledge of all the possible or understood values that exist, and the choice they exhibit, in forms of society.

If they are ethical values, and not some other irrelevance, then they all valid for the purpose. They describe the human condition, or ethics as a whole. They all relate together, and can therefore be portrayed graphically. We may then realize what the choice is. Answer the question of whether the opposite of something simple is something complex, or compound?

This whole debate has flown off at random.

Phronesis is no doubt a good term that would define what the altruist society is

Each basic value contradicts one end-value while helping to define the others. The generalised description of the three end-values or forms of society, not set definitions may be set out as:
Servile: in which people [and communities] serve the ideology or its representatives.
Autonomy: in which people [and communities] serve their own interests independently.
Altruist: in which people [and communities] serve mutual benefit.
In practical terms there are any number of forms of hybrid society such as our own.

So far as I am concerned. There are ethical values that simply describe the human condition. Not cultural 'values'. There are pragmatics or moral rules based on how we employ the values.

Before the deluge. I started this off not with founding ethics in reason. But with using reason to classify and arrange ethical values diagrammatically. In the way they logically relate. In my opinion there are three fundamental forms of society in general terms. We cannot say that one or other is 'right' only perhaps what we find acceptable and is not self destructive. We can only talk of what is right and wrong in practical terms at the point at which we have already accepted one of these forms of society.

I will answer before long

Too much! If you mention care as the basis of ethics then you have decided on what appeals to you and made this the basis of ethics. The genuine basis encompasses all the alternatives, and opposites, and contrasts, and then works out how the whole relates together in a rational model. Ethical values are all that relate to and define life. Ethical-political- social and as you will. This country today has lost the bigoted guidance of religion and has not replaced it with anything but populist wishful thinking. I cannot easily define end values as against basic values, other than observing that basic values are indefinite, such as Freedom. Taken by itself, out of any context of values, it is a recipe for irrational self indulgence and conflict. The only model that fitted in my estimation [without undue complexity] being [for graphic purposes] triangular with ambiguous basic values on the sides defining end values at the angles. Obviously there may be a number of sets of values. Naturally or not the end-value that represents me [in theory] is Altruism, which needs to be set against the other end-values in order to be defined in practical terms [tentativerly].
WORK out a model for 'life' and ignore the terms 'good' and 'bad' and demonstrate that for debate

Right or Wrong for specific issues would be defined in relation to the end-values, or rather within them. if we do not relate basic values so as to produce end-values then 'right and wrong' becomes a fashion show. I think that reads clearly?

Morality is then pragmatic ethics. Pragmatism being an essential ethical value. How do the ethical values relate together. How they do must at least provide the rational choice on which to base moral rules. 'Prnciples or basic values'. I am inclined to define a triparatite choice for any remotely stable society - if that is what we want.