I'm not an expert, but it seems obvious to me that these ethical conclusions follow from Epicurean principles:
1. Being absolutely mortal, I have no stake in the future.
2. I owe the world (or "humanity") nothing, and I am owed nothing by the world (or "humanity") in return.
3. Duty is always ultimately self-chosen.
These propositions are liberating, but also somewhat unsettling, disorienting--perhaps the opposite of what a livable ethics should be! Though I count myself an admirer of Epicurus, unlike others I find his philosophy deeply pessimistic. To me Epicureans are like a shipwrecked crew who wound up on an island with limited food and no hope to be rescued. They know they are going to die, but make the most of their situation. They enjoy each other's company and conversation, play games, and devise various means to divert themselves while the supplies run out. Is this not the Epicurean view of the world? I am not saying that it is false, only that it is not a bright and cheerful one.