I got as far as the first few highlights of the transcript, but so I wonder how far what Rawlette says is from what you say about a negative quale attaching to promise-breaking. Whatever reasons Rawlette has for hedonism do not automatically translate into reasons for utilitarianism, since utilitarianism isn't about just, "What is good?" but, "What is right?" And these are different questions, though answers to them admit of a deep ordering, and this ordering problem is one of the most fundamental in metaethics.
Kant has been styled a moral constructivist, which is something of a cognitivist, but not "traditionally" realist, point of view (though see Allen Wood for a more "realist" interpretation of Kantian metaethics). At any rate, for Kant, the moral law is tantamount to a law of quasi-physics on an analogy between ethics and physics (this difficult-to-parse claim is most acutely crystallized in the section of the second Critique that goes over "the type of the moral law"). Insofar as Kant holds transcendental freedom to be as or more fundamental than physical determinism, he has a non-utilitarian cognitivism in place, then. More specifically, his second formulation of the categorical imperative adverts to the Aristotelian definition of "substance," taking, "A subject that cannot objectively be a predicate," and giving a counterpart notion of, "An end that cannot only be a means to something else" (this is due to the parallelism between categorical propositions and categorical prescriptions in his overarching theory of logic).
So in that sense, Kant's "end in itself" is "as fundamental as" the notion of (physical) substance.
Theological voluntarism, the heading under which "divine-command theory" falls, can also be cognitivist, non-utilitarian (perhaps even essentially non-hedonistic, supposing that God doesn't passively feel things), and as/more fundamental than physics. Also, it would seem relatively easy for a divine being to maximize Its happiness under almost any conceivable circumstances, so it would be hard to get utilitarianism about rightness out of that deal. (Not impossible, though; e.g. suspend the impassibility thesis enough, and...)
Going back to the issue of the good vs. the right, the most schematic account of either adverts to the difference between cardinal and ordinal numbers, i.e. the concept of goodness is of deontic information best described using "amount of" talk, the concept of rightness is more about "degree of" talk. For finite numbers, amounts can always directly map back into degrees; for infinite sets, you need choice axioms or other special well-ordering principles to guarantee the fit. Arguably, then, though, the things that are good are right actions first, and these must be identifiable apart from how independently productive they are, of pleasure or anything else.
But there are also dual usages of numbers—numbers used in a way that is at once both cardinal and ordinal, i.e. surreal/surdinal numbers—and then usages of numbers as arbitrary indexes (a sort of "haecceitic" use). That latter kind of usage play into Rawls' objection to utilitarianism that it omits adequate consideration of the differences between persons (A Theory of Justice, 1999 ed., pg. 24), which is echoed by the question of replaceability in theories of romantic affection.
Addendum. One fanciful method of implementing the "as fundamental as physics" idea would be to suppose a sort of deontic field permeating spacetime, though how this would actually play out is beyond me at the moment. Another analogy might be drawn with the cumulation of the normal set-theoretic universe from the empty set, though this metaphor would suggest starting out from may-be-ness (permissibility, or even sheer gratuity) instead of ought-to-be-ness.