Some thoughts this comment sparked for me:

• I find valuing sentient beings equally is useful in both directions, e.g. would I treat another being the way I'm treating myself right now? It reminds me of some joke about the fact that when the vet gives people pills and a healthy eating guidance for their pets they make sure they follow the instructions to a T for the sake of their pet's health, and yet when the doctor gives those same people pills and a healthy eating guidance to help themselves, the adoption rate is way lower 

• There's inherent tension and logistical tradeoffs of having multiple values and acting in accordance with all of those values with your finite time/energy/resources/abilities/etc. I think most about this whenever I see organizations (esp. businesses) that list ~10 values they operate under, and it just feels ridiculously inaccurate to me. Like, sure I'm sure the org. wants to value all of those things, but you just literally can't act in entirely in accordance with all of those values at all times since there are many situations that inherently require you to choose between two directly conflicting values that are both important. I find thinking about values in terms of "this before that" much more helpful, e.g. a real life example for me related to this would be: I value sentient beings equally(1), and I value the natural order of the food chain. Because of the first value, I'm plant-based and don't eat animal products. In everyday life, this doesn't conflict with seeing value in the food chain because, even if it's sometimes a bit inconvenient, I am able to eat plant-based. 

  But let's say I was in some kind of a deserted island situation for a long enough time that it was a choice between catching/eating some fish and dying. Now, would catching and eating fish be my first choice? No, because I have both values. Would I do it if I had to? Yes, because when the two directly conflict, I value the natural food chain over valuing sentient beings equally. Would I feel bad about it? Yes, because eating fish would still be against my values and just because this situation brought about a conflict that required me to act out of alignment with my values as a last resort for survival, doesn't mean that I have entirely discarded the value. But I wouldn't feel so bad that I'd beat myself up about it because I hold that value of the food chain as more important. 

  And therefore, when the situation changes and I'm off the deserted island, I can realign my behavior with my values and no longer eat fish because the two things are no longer in conflict. Because of the "this before that" thinking, I'll also avoid the mindset of "I did ultimately eat fish, so I guess I might not actually value sentient beings equally." Instead the mindset would be more like "I always valued sentient beings equally even when I ate the fish, and now that I'm out of that situation, I'm relieved to be able to return to acting in alignment with both values" 

  So, in a rambley way, I guess what I'm really saying here is that I think awareness and intentionality around the tradeoffs/conflicts can help square the fact that we as humans value multiple things and the fact that it's not always possible to act in accordance with all of those values. And being really honest with yourself about those "this before that"s is crucial and doing so with the tone/energy of "it's just a fact right now that my behavior is saying that value x over y, and maybe I feel like I want my behavior to be saying I value y over x" without shame and with an eye to the why is helpful, e.g. when I was still eating meat despite understanding they were living beings, I came to recognize that I was valuing eating meat over valuing non-human lives. And, at the same time, I also valued not killing living beings. Clearly, those values directly conflict, but there was definitely cognitive dissonance.  Interestingly, what got me from being vegetarian was valuing the environment/ecosystem and not because I was resolving this cognitive dissonance or conflict yet, so my mindset became more like "I value the ecosystem more than I value eating meat." And when I came to recognize these conflicts/cognitive dissonances at various stages, the recognizing alone didn't radically change my behavior immediately, but the conflicting decisions did become active choices that I was aware I was making (2) which has led me to now acting more intentionally aligned with my values than I feel I ever have been in my past (3). 

  All to say, I think there's a lot of power in shedding light on these conflicts and cognitive dissonances through active thinking/awareness of what our behavior is saying we value vs what we think we do and why that tradeoff is happening and whether or not that tradeoff is one we're willing to make at this time
   

(1) setting aside certainties about which beings are sentient for this and just going with this general blanket statement, though for the sake of full disclosure, I'm mentioning that I'm not sure this statement is fully accurate without more caveating, nuance, thinking, etc.

(2) though perhaps I was not as explicitly formal in this as this description might be making it seem haha

(3) an ongoing process that'll never really be finished :p

PS: this comment got away from me and became more like some thinking out loud self-reflection sparked by your words than an actual response to you, so whoops but also thanks for the spark :)

I discussed this in a bit more length in this conference here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sivsXJ1L1pg), and in this paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/1809.01036.

The two links in this paragraph are broken; I'm interested in taking a look, are the resources still available?

Glad this edit was included at the start of the post; it definitely helped me as I read through the ideas. Thanks!

https://www.drawdown.org/solutions