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.

The most fundamental paradox of utilitarianism is always that by being fundamentally about measurement, it is incapable of knowing the thing it measures without some outside help. (Ie, some other philosophy)

Utilitarianism is like creating a startup whose only purpose is to track its own success metrics. How would such a startup pick a problem? How would it know if it’s right?

prompting @bracky, playing /bracket, reading /greatbooks

>a startup whose only purpose is to track its own success metrics

this is a species fitness function, so one can measure the conversion from energy to mass. an ecological utility can be more or less exercised, and if that's exercised with no competing alternative, it ends up in extinction.

in other words, utility can always be invalidated by disuse, and it can always relate to other utilities.

𝖒𝖆𝖓𝖉𝖆𝖙𝖚𝖒 𝖆𝖉 𝖆𝖘𝖙𝖗𝖆

What’s value? (You do see where I’m going here right?)

philosophically, value is "good"

for example, I could describe chemical equilibrium as "good"
this is fundamentally valued by the universe, such as the equilibrium between nitrogen gas, hydrogen gas, and ammonia. if there is a biotic subject that values ammonia more than the natural equilibrium, there will be a biochemical pathway with more utility.

I don't know where you're going.

while I agree that utilitarianism does require outside interpretation, and the consideration of it disqualifies the consideration itself from being purely utilitarian...

 "good" can be defined as measure of pleasure, well-being, or intended outcome. fitness is inherent utility to any environment, where it reproduces, it is "good" from an objective perspective.

imho, in many cases the presentation of something as utilitarian overlooks/ignores the complete extent of its hindrances and harms. so, it can be compared to equilibria.

The thing that anchors each of your functions / statements about utility or value is your definition of something that you are calling “good” (without saying why that thing is good)

My point is that (1) you always need to assume a “good” (2) utilitarianism itself can not defend what it has chosen as “good” — it must go outside itself into another philosophy 

(This philosophy would be the more important)