You have not justified why your conception of "coherency" is any way required. You can say that a logical system is analytically false, or even subject to theoretical money pumping if it didn't have a coherent utility statement that applies to all situations where the system is applied, but that doesn't appear to prevent me from acting on such a system in any way.
One can clearly act on an irrational set of values. However, if the set of values is money pumpable and violates transitivity, while holding that A can be both better than and equal to B, that's a problem with the view. It's not merely a practical problem--it shows that the view is fundamentally confused. If a moral system holds that you should be indifferent between N people being in poverty and N+1 people being in poverty, that moral system is false. Similarly, it is false if it holds one should pay a large sum to do nothing.
You have not justified why your conception of "coherency" is any way required. You can say that a logical system is analytically false, or even subject to theoretical money pumping if it didn't have a coherent utility statement that applies to all situations where the system is applied, but that doesn't appear to prevent me from acting on such a system in any way.
One can clearly act on an irrational set of values. However, if the set of values is money pumpable and violates transitivity, while holding that A can be both better than and equal to B, that's a problem with the view. It's not merely a practical problem--it shows that the view is fundamentally confused. If a moral system holds that you should be indifferent between N people being in poverty and N+1 people being in poverty, that moral system is false. Similarly, it is false if it holds one should pay a large sum to do nothing.