quality pleasures: A pleasure is of higher quality if people would choose it over a different pleasure even if it is accompanied by discomfort, and if they would not trade it for a greater amount of the other pleasure. Moreover, Mill contends, it is an "unquestionable fact" that, given equal access to all kinds of pleasures, people will prefer those that appeal to their "higher" faculties. A person will not choose to become an animal, an educated person will not choose to become ignorant, and so on. Even though a person who uses higher faculties often suffers more in life (hence the common dictum "ignorance is bliss"), he would never choose a lower existence, preferring instead to maintain his dignity.
Although I am understanding the baseline theory of utilitarianism, this is the only proposition I have read so far that I disagree with somewhat. The desires of any given population can be manipulated so heavily that a majority of persons can prefer a historically societal ill that deals much pain, whilst perceiving such pain as pleasure. For example, the common phrase that "life is not fair." This is an absurdly nihilistic outlook on life, but if society is transitioned into such a state that this becomes centralized and enshrined, then plain itself becomes utilitarian, regardless on what any realist, scientist, or logistic says. The underlying issue with utilitarianism is that changes based on the societal moral impetus of a certain time period, and can never be used to place the moral boundaries of societal, rather, reflect or reinforce therm.