Just as there is no thought without a thinker, no running without a runner, no liking without a liker, there is no value without a valuer. The concept of a value without a valuer doesn't make any sense. Now, it is true that false things can be valued (e.g., 2+2=5, the moon is cheese), and things which dramatically conflict with my values can be valued (e.g., murder, assault). But one cannot escape the semantic fact that valuing is what a valuer does.
Also, values are much broader, and usually less interesting, than just questions of good and evil.
A boot stomping on a human baby's face is self-evidently evil.
It's evident to me, as it dramatically conflicts with some of my most basic and strongly held values (not to mention a few ascetic ones). You can therefore consider it self-evident to me, if you like.
Since you guys are plunging into the deep - here is a question I've been thinking about while riding on my John Deere and moving the lawn:
Can an atheist believe in (or define) good or/and evil?
Without a reference for good, without an eternal prognosis for an eternal soul, where does the objective reference for evil come from?
Not stated well, but maybe you'll get the question.
A_R