"One might infer that good states above a sufficient level have diminishing marginal value"

Can't one just restate the original gamble, but now with the Utopia stipulated to have arbitrarily large value, instead of whatever other good it was measured in before? If value itself is the unit of evaluation, then shouldn't a non-risk-averse person be indifferent between a decent world, and a 50/50 gamble with outcomes + N value, - N value, for any N?

Even if you think there is a maximum possible value (which as you note in the other post, has its own problems), it doesn't seem outrageous to me that the maximum would be large enough to admit a gamble of this form that would still be very counterintuitive for most people to actually accept over the alternative.

To the general point: I made a similar argument in the comments to an earlier post on a similar topic, but isn't it enough to note that most people have a preference for Utopia over the void, and argue that Utopia is better on the grounds that it satisfies our current preferences more? Does there need to be an *intrinsic* reason why Utopia is better than the void?

In general, the idea of intrinsic value seems odd to me. What appeals to me about consequentialism and utilitarianism is that they are very person-centric: utility is about what's good *for people*, unlike deontology or divine command or whatever, which center "goodness" somewhere else, somewhere outside of what actually affects and matters to people.

Obviously the above is too naive a conception of utilitarianism to be all that useful: we often face dilemmas where we have to decide how to evaluate situations that are good for some people but not for others, or where we face uncertainty over how good something is, or whether it's good at all, and so we need a more complex theory to help us deal with these issues.

But when contemplating the void, it feels to me like we aren't in one of these situations: there are no people in the void, and so no one for whom it to be good or bad; the only people for whom it can be good or bad are the people now who are contemplating it, and so we should be free to value it however we want, with no worry of our values coming into conflict with those of the people who live in that world. As it happens, we (mostly) currently very strongly dis-prefer the void--but there's no intrinsic reason we have to, and if we were to collectively change our minds on the point, that would be fine.