Lots of people enjoy "philosophical" discussions and certainly derive value from them. What they might not like is the "philosophy" that's continually throwing

Lots of people enjoy "philosophical" discussions and certainly derive value from them. What they might not like is the "philosophy" that's continually throwing around author names, complicated words, and kinda leaves the average person feeling stupid talking around "proper philosophers". If you want to educate people, start with the layman explanations, and only at the end annotate the complicated words. It's not like people don't understand the general concept of things like "utilitarianism", it's simply that they don't use that word in their day to day, so they don't associate the concept to the word. As to your other comment, well, that included a rather oversimplified example of utilitarianism, which many utilitarians will not even share. It's very easy to make naive utilitarian calculations, and in many cases there's too much uncertainty to even make calculations. You can only say that naive utilitarianism is easier than deontology. No offense intended, but maybe some people were downvoting you for this.