If you generalize consequentialism to mean 'whatever supports your preferences', then you've expanded it beyond an ethical system to include most decision-making systems. We're not discussing consequentialism in the general sense, either.

Consequentialism is the class of normative ethical theories holding that the consequences of one's conduct are the ultimate basis for any judgment about the rightness of that conduct. Thus, from a consequentialist standpoint, a morally right act (or omission) is one that will produce a good outcome, or consequence.

I'm rejecting the cases where what is 'good' or 'morally right' is defined as being whatever one prefers. That form of morality is exactly what would be used by Hostile AI, with a justification similar to "I wish to create as many replicating nanomachines as possible, therefore any action which produces fewer, like failing to consume refined materials such as 'structural supports', is immoral." A system which makes literally whatever you want the only moral choice doesn't provide any benefits over a lack of morality.

I suppose it is technically possible to believe that donating one out of two functioning kidneys is a worse consequence than living with no functioning kidneys. Of course, since the major component of donating a kidney is the surgery, and a similar surgery is needed to receive a kidney, there is either a substantial weighting towards oneself, or one would not accept a donated kidney if suffering from total renal failure. (Any significant weighting towards oneself results in the act of returning excess change to be immoral in strict consequentialism, assuming that the benefit to oneself is precisely equal to the loss to a stranger).

Because donating a kidney IS fairly easy to do. So easy, in fact, that when I realized that I really, really, don't want to, I had to come to terms with the fact that I needed to reevaluate either morality or my character.