In the "moral values" domain, you're more likely to have discontinuous rules (e.g., "X is always bad", or "X<N is acceptable while X>N is not"), and be performing logical inference over them. This results in situations that you can't solve directly, and it can result in circular or indeterminate chains of reasoning, and multiple possible solutions.

This line of thinking is setting off my rationalization detectors. It sounds like you're saying, "OK, I'll admit that my claim seems wrong in some simple cases. But it's still correct in all of the cases that are so complicated that nobody understands them."

I don't know how to distinguish moral values from other kinds of values, but it seems to me that this isn't exactly the distinction that would be most useful for you to figure out. My suggestion would be to figure out why you think high IC is bad, and see if there's some nice way to characterize the value systems that match that intuition.