I've only taken a few introductory philosophy classes, but I'm very interested in philosophy in general. Within ethics, (I think) I subscribe to utilitarianism in some form. I feel as though most (if not all) of the criticisms of utilitarianism point to problems that can be resolved via more careful calculations. For example, problems such as the utility monster arise because the calculation of utility that simply adds everything up is ridiculous. It seems very clear to me that the total utility is not the only factor that matters; the shape and spread of the distribution of utilities should also be considered.
The way I see it, it's very clear that some form of utilitarianism is the best way to do ethics. We should acknowledge this and move on to the more interesting question of how exactly we calculate the utilities.
The most relevant criticism is probably that utility is difficult to measure or define consistently. Avoiding difficult calculations seems necessary in any decision-making we do via utilitarianism.
We should estimate, to the best of our ability, the negative and positive consequences of our actions. This includes an estimate of the amount of time we need to do the calculations themselves.
Anyway, I'm rambling. I'd like to read more about attempts to make utilitarianism a practical tool for decision-making, but I don't know where to look. Mill, for one, doesn't say much about this kind of stuff. Are any authors who discuss utility-calculation-related ideas, such as taking into account the shape/spread of the distribution of utility or the time required to make decisions?