One needs to position himself, so people can relate to what you are saying. Also, you need to give weight functions in front of each value to show how important it is.
The basic center is the Oral and Written Law. That is the Old Testament, plus the Oral commentary that was received tradition until it was written down in the two Talmuds.
The world view backing this up or that I think is implicit inside of it--the world view that provided the foundation for the Oral and Written Law I think is the Rambam's Guide For The Perplexed and Saadia Gaon's Emunot VeDeot.
Both are Neo Platonic. But the Rambam leans heavily towards Aristotle.
Thus the questions and issues brought by Kant and Hegel are pertinent and need to be addressed.
I lean towards a kind of composite between Kant and Hegel and Schopenhauer. I accept the "dinge an sich" (thing in itself) which I think is clear in the Rambam. Revelations reveal the dinge an sich. There is a hierarchy of dinge an sich until you get to the "ding an sich."(singular. Absolute Trancendence.)
[I lean towards Kant in this, that this hierarchy is in the nature of the unconditioned realities. This is not like Hegel in which the contradictions are in the objects and concepts themselves, and need to be brought into action through time.]
You can see this in most medieval books of Jewish ethics Musar. That even natural sciences they considered revealed by Revelation not by Reason. I have personal reasons for my world view and empirical observations.
The most admirable, moral, decent people I every knew were my parents so obviously what every they said or did must have an important effect on my world view. Plus I had an experience with the Ding an Sich that I can only understand today by means of Kant's idea of unconditioned realities. So that is a highly personal reason that others my not relate to.
Also because of my studies in Musar and Gemara I am very much in favor of the idea that people have aright to their property and the fruits of their labor. Government taking that from them I see as theft unless it is part of the Constitution or some contract that people have agreed to beforehand.