This seems to indicate a dichotomy between "knowledge" and a "system of values." Do you imply that a "system of values," is other than objective knowledge that must be non-contradictorily integrated with all other knowledge?
(I'm asking because I may have misinterpreted what you intended.)
Also, I do not believe there is such a thing as, "innate conscience," and that what is normally called "conscience" is one's emotional reaction to the values they already hold. For example, there was a tribe in New Guinea that believed they ought to lie whenever speaking to a member of other tribes, and would suffer a "guilty conscience," if they told the truth to an enemy. (These were cannibals who suffered the same pangs of conscience if they failed to eat their enemies after defeating them in war.)
Hank
I see your point. I concede that values would be a specialized subset of knowledge that would incorporate knowledge of right and wrong.
"Also, I do not believe there is such a thing as, "innate conscience," and that what is normally called "conscience" is one's emotional reaction to the values they already hold."
I do believe strongly in an "innate conscience". However, that conscience can be overwritten by social mores and religious beliefs.
Man is born with a basic understanding of right and wrong. Yet if you tell men enough times that he will get 72 virgins and the approval of Allah if he straps bombs to his chest and blows up children. And if the community he lives in agrees with that, some percent will allow their innate conscience to be overwritten and will become suicide bombers.