Just because the trivial functions are obviously wrong that doesn't mean good non-trivial functions don't exist. I also don't see why you're stressing on linear

Just because the trivial functions are obviously wrong that doesn't mean good non-trivial functions don't exist. I also don't see why you're stressing on linearity, there's nothing in general utility theory that demands linearity (in particular even in VNM utility). So here's one utility function (for a company, for example): "Utility = Capital ^ (2/3)". It's one valid utility function (even in accordance to VNM theorem), which is why I don't understand the saying "there is no utility function". If you read what I wrote in response to gress below, I of course have no hope that utility theory would unveil a good utility function in itself; indeed you cannot do it within mathematics exclusively. I just think it's a useful tool that exposes whatever fundamental motivations you have with clarity. Which again is why I don't see why criticizing utilitarianism is a thing at all.