This is all true. But humans do not have utility functions... Humans are not the coherent, consistent agents you make them out to be.

If you think that's relevant, you should also go write the same comment on Eliezer's post on utilons and fuzzies. Having two coherent, consistent utility functions is no more realistic than having one.

If you want to be rational, you need to try to figure out what your values are, and what your utility function is. Humans don't act consistently. Whether their preferences can be described by a utility function is a more subtle question whose answer is unknown. But in either case, in order to be more rational, you need to be able to approximate your preferences with a utility function.

Fighting for willpower is basically your far-self trying to wrest control of your behavior from your near-self.

You can alternately describe this as the place where the part of your utility function that you call your far self, and the part of your utility function that you call your near self, sum to zero and provide no net information on what to do. You can choose to describe the resultant emotional confusion as "fighting for willpower". But this leads to the erroneous conclusions I described under the "ethics as willpower" section.