I think the core of what's unintuitive about the various paradoxes of utilitarianism is the idea that utility is unbounded. This clashes with how our brains work, where there actually is a bound on how strongly we can feel (positively or negatively) about any particular situation.

if our emotional limits are bounded and evolutionarily contingent, why trust them as a constraint on moral truth?

Isn't there a danger in letting the limits of human feeling dictate the limits of moral reasoning? Just because we can’t viscerally grasp the weight of trillions of lives doesn’t mean they don’t morally matter.

Maybe the discomfort we feel with unbounded utility isn’t a flaw in utilitarianism—it’s a flaw in us. So the question becomes: should ethics be about what feels right, or about what is right, even if our brains can’t keep up?