Wheylous, you really should read Hazlitt, The Foundations of Morality if you haven’t already.
For different reasons I would also recommend Stirner, The Ego and Its Own…
Both are available online, of course.
Hazlitt is a poor philosopher. Don’t bother with ‘pop’ moral philosophy. Reminds me of Molyneux and Sam Harris. It’s been recommended though, so have a look and decide after what you think. I suppose it’s a good idea to acquaint yourself with how bad things can really get. People might get pissed off because I’m taking a shot at one of ‘the greats’, but poor thinking is poor thinking, and I’m going to call it as I see it.
Sample: “From time immemorial, many philosophers and poets have held that the sufficient ethical guide for man was to “follow the laws of nature.” Taken literally, the advice is unnecessary and absurd. It is impossible to violate the laws of nature; man cannot help obeying them.”
LOL.
Further: “It is irrational because all human action whatever consists in altering the spontaneous course of nature, and all useful action consists in improving it. It is immoral because nature can be wanton, destructive, and cruel:”
Every chapter is tiny and inevitably butchers even the interpretation of the various ethical theories, not to mention his awful attempts at offering a critique. If you want to know the ethical systems, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is far better.
Read Adam Smith’s Theory of Moral Sentiments, and then read Frankena, Russell, G.E. Moore, Anscombe, David Oderberg, and Louis Groarke.
Also, try and grab Kymlicka’s book on political philosophy. It’s a great introduction and survey and also offers a very decent critique of utilitarianism.
No, I don’t mind the critique - the suggestion was really just so that the OP could see that utilitarianism isn’t necessarily concerned with measurable utils (and also because it was a resource available on this website).
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy I agree is a great resource.