> lives on as a dried out lich in a chair

Wow, I thought you are being metaphorical, but turns out it's literally true.

Anyway - I'm not a believer in utilitarianism, but don't think attacking works of the founder of the movement really forms that strong of an argument. I'd say utilitarianism is a project of founding a rationalist ethics (note, one of a bunch of possible ones) that happens to fail in having a strong logical structure without generating ridiculous consequences. It tries to handwave it, patch itself with some ad hoc additions and act like it's a quasi-scientific thing.