Mathematically-perfect and self-consistent value systems are just not possible to square with human intuition, and since all value systems are arbitrary, there's no particular reason to try to force myself into the most elegant one. Just avoid getting dutch-booked/money-pumped and otherwise I should do whatever I feel like doing.

This rejects utilitarianism, since there's no particular reason why I should care equally about any two humans but shouldn't also care about, say, a rock. The entities that I care about are arbitrarily chosen, and if I care more about some humans than others, there's no logical argument to the contrary.

It does not reject emergent game-theoretical considerations, i.e. instrumental approaches towards satisfying my values. A society of entirely self-interested psychopaths would still agree to ban murder, as it's mutually beneficial to do so.

; if I care about waking up from sleep but don't care about surviving death via cryonics, that's not inconsistent, just an arbitrary value system like any other.

Best counterargument(s) to the above get a bounty.