This is a fantastic comment, but it also underscores the thing I really dislike about most internet conversations about philosophy: a lack of reading prior art. Utilitarian morality certainly isn't a new concept though the rationalists today are some of its strongest standard bearers. But around the time when utilitarianism was starting to take hold, rigorous philosophical thinking had exactly the debates that come up here.

Part of the reason I enjoy rationalist discourse more is because, even if they are unabashedly utilitarian, they try to rigorously derive philosophy. Most internet discourse on philosophy is, as you say, just vaguely derived around gut feelings. But philosophy can and has been thought of rigorously. Virtue ethics and continental morality are both schools of thought that reject utilitarian ethics but are much more meaty than the sort of internet "no but my neighbors" intuition that you see in full force, and the weird insistence that these internet commenters continue to use their vague moral intuition without being rigorous about their own thoughts.