What manner of reflection process is it that eliminates terminal values until you only have one left? Not the one that I use (At least, not anymore, since I have reflected on my reflection process). A linear combination (or even a nonlinear combination) of terminal values can fit in exactly the same spot that a single value could in a utility function. You could even give that combination a name, like "goodness", and call it a single value (though it would be a complex one). So there is nothing inconsistent about having several separate values.

Let me hazard a guess, based on my own previous reflection process, now abandoned due to meta-reflection. First, I would find a pair of thought experiments where I had strong feelings for an object-level choice in each, and I felt I was being inconsistent between them. Of course, object-level choices in two different scenarios can't be inconsistent. There is a computation that returns both of those answers, namely, whatever was going on in your pre-reflection brain.

For example, "throw the level, redirect the trolley to kill 1 instead of 5" and "don't butcher the healthy patient and steal their organs to save five."

The inconsistence is in the two principles I would have automatically come up with to explain two different object-level choices. Or, if my reasons for one emotional reaction are too complicated for me to realize, then it's between one principle and the emotional reaction. Of course, the force behind the principle comes from the emotional reaction to the thought experiment which motivated it.

Then, I would let the two emotions clash against each other, letting my mind flip between the two scenarios back and forth until one started to weaken. The winner would become stronger, because it survived a clash. And so did the principle my mind coughed up to explain it.

What are the problems with this?

1. It favors simple principles for the sole reason that they are easier to guess by my conscious mind, which of course doesn't really have access to the underlying reasons. It just thinks it does. This means it depends on my ignorance of other more complicated principles. This part can be destroyed by the truth.

2. The strength of the emotion for the object-level choice is often lent to the principle by something besides what you think it is. Yvain covered this in an essay that you, being a hedonistic utilitarian would probably like: Wirehead Gods on Lotus Thrones. His example is that being inactive and incredibly happy without interuption forever sounds good to him if he thinks of Buddhists sitting on lotuses and being happy, but bad if he thinks of junkies sticking needles in their arms and being happy. With this kind of reflection, you consciously think something like: "Of course, sitting on the lotus isn't inherently valuable, and needles in arms aren't inherently disvaluable either," but unconsciously, your emotional reaction to that is what's determining which explicit principles like "wireheading is good" or "wireheading is bad" you consciously endorse.

3. All of your standard biases are at play in generating the emotional reactions in the first place. Scope insensitivity, status quo bias, commitment bias, etc.

4. This reflection process can go down different paths depending on the order that thought experiments are encountered. If you get the "throw switch, redirect trolley" one first, and then are told you are a consequentialist, and that there are other people who don't throw the switch because then they are personally killing someone, and you think about their thought process and reject it as a bad principle, and then you see the "push the fat man off the bridge" one, and you think "wow, this really feels like I shouldn't push him off the bridge, but [I have this principle established where I act to save the most lives, not to keep my hands clean]", and slowly your instinct (like mine did) starts to become "push the fat man off the bridge." And then you hear the transplant version, and you become a little more consequentialist. And so on. It would be completely different if most people heard the transplant one first (or an even more deontology-skewed thought experiment). I am glad of course, that I have gone down this path as far as I have. Being a consequentialist has good consequences, and I like that! But my past self might not have agreed, and likewise I probably won't agree with most possible changes to my values. Each version of me judges differences between the versions under its own standards.

5. There's the so called sacred vs. secular value divide (I actually think it's more of a hierarchy, with several layers of increasing sacredness, each of which feels like it should lexically override the last), where pitting a secular value vs a sacred value makes the secular value weaker and the sacred one stronger. But which values are secular or sacred is largely a function of what your peers value.

And whether a value becomes stronger or weaker through this process depends largely on which pairs of thought experiments you happen to think of. Is a particular value, say "artistic expression", being compared to the value of life, and therefore growing weaker, or is it being compared to the value of not being offended, and therefore growing stronger?

So that you don't ignore my question like you did the one in the last post, I'll reiterate it. (And I'll add some other questions). What process of reflection are you using that you think leads people toward a single value? Does it avoid the problems with my old one that I described? Is this a process of reflection most people would meta-reflectively endorse over alternative ones that don't shrink them down to one value? (If you are saying that people who have several values are out of reflective equilibrium, then you'd better argue for this point.)

Edited: formatting.

Yes, that's true. If you believe what I'm offering doesn't exist, it follows that you ought not believe I'll follow through on that offer.

Most people don't want to be wireheaded, and would reject it even if it were offered for free, but they'd still like it once subjected to it.

Ah, OK. And when you talk about "values", you mean exclusively the things that control what we like, and not the things that control what we want.

Have I got that right?

This begs the question of whether the word "pleasure" names a real entity. How do you give someone "pleasure"? As opposed to providing them with specific things or experiences that they might enjoy? When they do enjoy something, saying that they enjoy it because of the "pleasure" it gives them is like saying that opium causes sleep by virtue of its dormitive principle.

Do you mean "forcibly wirehead people and see if they decide to remove the pleasure feedback"? Also, see this post.