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.
There is a sense in which I would agree with this premise, but suspect it is not the same as yours. I would be very interested in what it is on which you base this concept. I do not believe in "a priori" knowledge of any kind, so, if that is your premise, please be prepared to defend it. (Not that you have to answer to me for anything, I mean only for the sake of discussion, I hope you understand.)
Hank