Living comes before thinking. That is absolutely right. But that does not mean that ethics comes before logic.
It goes like a circle. When living without ethics has reached thinking, then it has reached logic and starts going backwards: from logic to living, which is now a living with ethics.
Even the most primitive laws are based on ethics based on logic. So they are primarily based on logic. The reason of any taboo and any totem may be ethics, but reason is not cause. They are caused by logic (based on logic), because only logic can lead to ethics. Ethics without logic is not possible. Logic without ethics is possible. Even an anarchist has to argue logically when it comes to the elimination of laws.
Do bacteria have ethics? No, but they are behaving according to logic. Logic does not require ethics, but ethics requires logic (otherwise such "ethics“ would not really be ethics).
So if we are arguing according to development in general or evolution and history in particular, we have to put logic first. Logic was before ethics.
A child in a womb can already behave according to logic - but not according to ethics. Every child’s development shows clearly that logic comes before ethics. Also is behaving according to ethics earlier than knowing about ethics.
So again: You are absolutely right about the fact that living comes before thinking. But you should not confuse ethics with living, because ethics does not mean "living“ (but the philosophical [!] answer to the also philosophical [!] question: "what should we do?“). Living can but does not have to lead to thinking, and logic can but does not have to lead to ethics.