The sacred values of less Westernized cultures are treated by Western political strategists as a problem to be solved. A prominent minority view in the West is that flexible utilitarian moral systems are the most desirable. Moral systems that invest certain gods, principles, etc. with absolute inviolable value-sacred value-are considered potentially dangerous. Sacred moral systems are incompatible, for instance with economic notions of "rationality". Whether sacred values are less compatible with lasting peace is a more contentious empirical question, and one that is high stakes to investigate. To some utilitarian reasoners, evidence that sacred values are less compatible with peace could justify an aggressive stance towards "sacred values" societies, perhaps even justify military aggression. From a utilitarian perspective, military aggression might kill, maim, starve and infect many millions of people, but would ultimately bring the greatest good for the greatest number. In the committed utilitarian's view, it would be illiberally inflexible to declare the sacred inviolability of all human beings and thus to rigidly affirm all people's absolute human rights not to be tortured, murdered, or robbed of their land, sovereignty or identity. I will present this deliberately stereotyped and defamatory view of utilitarian reasoning to illustrate what is defamatory about the increasingly common view of sacred values reasoning. I will finally present empirical evidence addressing the view that sacred values vs. utilitarianism = authoritarianism vs. liberty = war vs. peace.