I'm not arguing for the supremacy of non-conscious values: in many cases, people have good sense of their actual values and consciously resolve their implications, which is what I see as the topic of Which Parts Are "Me"?. The inborn values are not a fixed form, although they are a fixed seed, and their contradictions need to be resolved.

If you went down that route, you might as well start saying that since all ethics is rationalization anyway, then any consequentialist arguments that didn't aim at promoting the maximum fitness of your genes were irrelevant.

Genes? The expression of that evil alien elder god? They don't write a default morality.

The links relevant to my argument:

Human universal (we all share the bulk of our values), *Complexity of value (there is a lot of stuff coded in the inborn values; one can't explain away* huge chunks of this complexity by asserting them not present in one's particular values), *Fake simplicity (it's easy to find simple arguments that gloss over a complex phenomenon), *No, Really, I've Deceived Myself (it's not a given that one even appreciates the connection of the belief with the asserted content of that belief)

These obviously don't form a consistent argument, but may give an idea of where I'm coming from. I'm only declining to believe particularly outrageous claims, where I assume the claims being made because of error and not because of the connection to reality; where the claims are not outrageous, they might well indicate the particular ways in which the person's values deviate from the typical.