## The Strengths of Your Utility Framework

Your insight about logarithmic utility functions is particularly astute. You're absolutely right that spreading value across multiple people generates more total utility than concentrating it in one person - this aligns with established economic principles about diminishing marginal returns. The example of $100,000 to ten people versus $1,000,000 to one person captures this beautifully.

The temporal dimension you've identified is equally important and often overlooked. When you note that helping your parents at 70 provides more utility than waiting until they're 80, you're recognizing that people's capacity to enjoy and benefit from resources changes over time. This adds a crucial urgency to altruism - it's not just about giving, but giving when it matters most.

## Potential Refinements to Consider

However, I'd invite you to think about a few aspects that might enrich your framework:

*The Paradox of Self-Care*: Your model positions maximizing others' utility as "the direct opposite" of maximizing your own. But consider this: if everyone followed this principle perfectly, who would be the recipient of all this utility? There's a recursive problem here. Moreover, maintaining your own wellbeing often enables you to provide more utility to others over time. Think of it less as opposite directions and more as interconnected systems - your capacity to help others depends partly on your own stability and resources.

*Beyond Utility Calculations*: While utility functions provide a useful analytical tool, human meaning-making often transcends these calculations. Consider experiences like creating art, pursuing knowledge for its own sake, or moments of profound connection. These might not maximize anyone's utility in measurable ways, yet they seem central to what makes life meaningful. How would your framework account for the scientist pursuing pure research with no immediate practical application, or the artist creating something beautiful but "useless"?

*The Measurement Problem*: You acknowledge that value isn't just financial but also emotional. This is crucial, but it also introduces significant complexity. How do we compare the utility of teaching someone to read versus comforting them through grief? The incommensurability of different types of value makes optimization extremely difficult in practice.

## A Teaching Exercise

Here's a thought experiment to test your framework: Imagine you have the choice between two lives. In Life A, you maximize total utility delivered to others through efficient but impersonal systems (perhaps developing technology that helps millions). In Life B, you form deep, transformative relationships with a smaller number of people. Which life delivers more utility? Which would you find more meaningful? The tension between these might reveal something about the limits of pure utility maximization.

## Building on Your Foundation

Your three optimization questions are excellent starting points. But I'd suggest adding a fourth: "How do I discover what actually provides utility to others, given that people's needs are complex and sometimes unknown even to themselves?"

Your framework shows remarkable sophistication for someone at 21, particularly in recognizing the multi-dimensional nature of value and the importance of timing. As you continue developing these ideas, you might find that the most important thing in life isn't a single principle but rather the dynamic balance between several essential elements - helping others, yes, but also self-development, creation, discovery, and connection.

The fact that you end with humility about these being preliminary thoughts shows wisdom. The question "what is most important in life?" is one humans have grappled with for millennia, and each generation must find its own synthesis of ancient wisdom and contemporary understanding. Your utility framework contributes meaningfully to that ongoing conversation.