问HN：生活中最重要的事情是什么？
我认为我对“生活中最重要的事情是什么”这个问题有一个不错的答案。那就是为他人提供最大的效用。这与为自己积累最大效用是完全相反的。通过提供价值，你可以为他人带来效用。每个人都有一个效用函数，用来衡量某种价值对他们的重要性。如果总效用为T，效用函数为U，价值为v，那么T = U(v)。效用和价值通常是正相关的（我通常在拥有更多钱或朋友时会更快乐）。
价值不仅仅是金钱（这是一个常见的误区），也可以是情感上的。拥有一个充满爱的家庭对你来说是非常高的效用，同时你通过支持家人也在为他们提供高效用。这可以解释为什么亿万富翁企业家如果没有亲密的朋友或家人可能会对生活感到不快乐，因为他们在情感上非常贫乏（而不是富有）。如果生活中最重要的事情是为他人最大化效用，那么如果你自己是唯一的富人，但没有为他人提供任何效用，那么你的财富就等于零。没有人会因为特朗普让白宫变得更加豪华而感到快乐，当他们连食物都买不起时（而他正在起诉以紧急停止发放食品券）。
需要注意的是，提供价值有两个方面。首先，人们通常具有对数效用函数。如果你将所有价值都提供给一个人，而对其他人则没有价值，那样的效用并不高。实际上，这意味着你希望最大化你为他人提供的效用总和。理论上，为十个贫困者每年提供10万美元的支持，所产生的整体效用远高于为一个贫困者每年提供100万美元的支持。同样，为一个人提供极高的情感支持而忽视其他人，所产生的价值也低于为多个人（如配偶、孩子、家庭、朋友）提供高情感支持。
一般来说（所有类型的总和）效用函数是对数型的，而构成的财务效用和情感效用函数也是对数型的。这在经济学中通过向内弯曲的偏好曲线得以体现。拥有很多朋友的穷人比没有朋友的富人更看重金钱，而没有朋友的富人则比拥有很多朋友的穷人更看重友谊。
此外，人们的效用函数会随着时间而变化。这就是为什么在父母70岁时为他们提供经济稳定比等到他们80岁时再给予巨额财富更有益的原因。早期提供价值的效用更高；效用函数并不是随时间保持不变的。
因此，有三个优化同时进行：
1. 我如何在我的一生中最大化我为他人提供的效用？
2. 我如何在不同的人之间分配价值，以使这些分配最大化每个人的效用总和，同时考虑公平性？
3. 我如何在时间上分配价值，以使这些分配最大化每个人的效用总和，同时考虑公平性？
这归结为“做好事，尤其是在别人需要时帮助每个人”，因为我们是在优化自我、关系和时间。这三者本身对生活都非常重要，因此这似乎是一个很好的检验，表明这个想法大致是正确的。
最后，重要的是要记住，这些是我21岁时的即兴想法。随着年龄的增长，我可能会更加成熟，并对生活中最重要的事情有更细致或准确的看法。此外，生活非常复杂，完全将其简化为简单的定理或观点是不可能的。
我非常希望听到其他人的想法。
查看原文
I think I have a decent answer to the question "what is the most important thing in life". It is to deliver the maximum amount of utility to other people. This is the direct opposite of accruing the maximum amount of utility for yourself. You provide utility to people by delivering value. Everyone has a utility function of how important a certain amount of value to them. If total utility is T and a utility function is U and value is v, then T = U(v). Utility and value are generally positively correlated (I am usually happier if I have more money or friends).<p>Value is not just financial (a common fallacy), but can also be emotional. Having a loving family is very high utility to you, but you are also providing high utility to your family members by supporting them. This could explain why billionaire entrepreneurs may be unhappy with life if they don't have any close friends or family, because they are very poor (not rich) emotionally. If the most important thing in life is to maximize utility for others, then being the sole rich person yourself is equivalent to zero wealth if you haven't delivered any utility to others. Nobody is happy about Trump making the White House fancier when they cannot afford food (and he is suing for an emergency stop on issuing food stamps).<p>It is important to note two aspects of delivering value. First, people generally have logarithmic utility functions. If you deliver all the value to a single person and zero value to others, that is not very high utility. Actually, this really means that you want to maximize the sum of utility you have provided other people. In theory, providing ten poor people $100,000 per year generates a much higher overall utility than providing one poor person $1,000,000 per year. Likewise, providing extremely high emotional support for one person and neglecting everyone else generates less value than providing high emotional support for multiple people (such as spouse+kids+family+friends).<p>The general (all types summed) utility function is logarithmic, but the constituent financial utility and emotional utility functions are also logarithmic. This is captured in the inwardly-bowed preference curve in economics. Poor people with lots of friends value money more than rich people with no friends, and the rich people with no friends value friendship more than poor people with lots of friends.<p>Also, people's utility functions change over time. This is why it makes sense that providing financial stability for your parents when they are 70 years old benefits them more than waiting until they are 80 years old to provide them immense wealth. The utility of providing them value earlier is higher; utility functions are not constant over time.<p>Therefore, there's three optimizations happening simultaneously:<p>1. How do I maximize the amount of utility I provide for others over the course of my entire lifetime?<p>2. How do I allocate value across people such that the allocations maximize the sum of everyone's utility, subject to fairness?<p>3. How do I allocate value across time such that the allocations maximize the sum of everyone's utility, subject to fairness?<p>This boils down to "be good and help everyone especially when they need it", since we are optimizing across self, relationships, and time. These three things by themselves are very important to life, so this seems to be a good smell check that this idea is ballpark correct.<p>Finally, it is important to remember that these are off-the-cuff thoughts by me at 21 years old. I will likely mature and have more nuanced or accurate thoughts about what is the most important thing in life when I get older. Also, life is very complex and it's impossible to completely distill it into simple theorems or ideas.<p>I'd really appreciate hearing other people's thoughts.