The OP argues that "reality" is prior to "thought" but the evidence being here denied points to there being no a priori foundation called "reality" which is independent of thought.
Fresco, I have no where claimed any a-priori foundational truths. That is a straw man, especially since I myself am not certain a coherent epistemic framework is necessarily grounded by basic/a-priori beliefs. My basic argument is that epistemic realism is the best explanation for science's progressive aproximation
to truth based on an empirical epistemology. That is an assumption yes, but assumptions have to be made at times. The argument is whether such assumptions are justified, and in the case of science and the supposed knowledge it generates, empirical science's methodology, and the modification of that methodology, the realist assumption best explains why empirical science operates the way it does.
The argument that "consistent facts" imply such an a priori reality, is circular because "facts" are cognitive constructs (Latin facere) involving social agreement via a common culture and language.
Facts may be cognitive in nature, but they arn't necessarily constructed all the way down. Cognitivists simnply argue that our claims which report facts are true if such claims get the facts right. Empirical science operates based on this very same logic.
This point is particularly relevant to the OP attempt at extrapolation to moral issues because the anthropological studies cited highlight a clash of moral paradigms (views on factuality) regarding "culpability" in different cultures.