Measuring utils

-

 Utilitarianism is often criticized on the grounds that "utils" are immeasurable and are judged entirely subjectively, making it basically useless as a practical tool when making conclusions about decisions. I decided some time ago that utils could be effective if we found a common ground to make utils relative. I believe the key to this is to compare the util value of an individual year of life when compared to the perceived average util level. In other words.. If I asked, "How many utils would you decrease from your average util level in order to live for one more year?" The answer wouldn't matter. What would matter, is that no matter the amount of utils, we would consider it equivalent to 1 "mutil" (measured util). That way, everyone could relate the ratio of average satisfaction in life to the added satisfaction of its continued presence, resulting in a much more accurate comparison of perceived satisfaction. So, 5 "mutils" would be the equivalent of the amount of average perceived satisfaction you would give up in order to live for an extra 5 years. (Presumably, not very much). It works like this:

Isaac is somewhat upset that his parents are getting a divorce. On a particular day, he tells his friend that he is feeling a decrease of 30 mutils. This is to say that he would need to live an extra 30 years at his average perceived satisfaction level (before the decrease) in order to endure the sadness every day until then. I know it isn't perfect, but it is closer to achieving an understandable way to perceive utils from a second party.

Note on Maturity

 I'm starting to feel that maturity is synonymous with the idea that you spend little mental energy in predicting the outcome of numerous events. The repetition of the way different variables interact allows us to expand our ideas elsewhere. I'm not sure I believe this definition of maturity entirely, but I feel it does resemble this sometimes.

Predictability

So much is based on predictability. Our personal depiction of reality is based on predictability of different individual events. Science is entirely prediction based. Our actions are based on predicted outcomes. But, it's not just foresight. Well, it is, but that word makes it seem as if it's avoidable in any situation. It is entirely unavoidable. In fact, any action is based on a predicted outcome, even if it is just the fact that an outcome will happen. Yep, while those belonging to the philosophical group labeled "skeptics" may be somewhat practical in questioning whether it's possible to "know" anything, I think it is invariably important to realize that when we say "reality" what we really mean is that all observations of cause and effect have lead us to believe in a set of predictable outcomes that we've labeled "reality". I've also recognized a connection between empathetic reasoning and predictability, outside of immediate effect on the other party, but I'd like to further the thought before I set it down. Now, is it important to recognize the impact of what I've been calling "predictability" on our possible illusion of "reality"? I mean, event-specifically useful, not general use of the skills and habitual use of such kind of thinking and action taking.