While reading Mill's essay I struggled with the idea that in Utilitarianism you strive for pleasure using the Greatest Happiness Principle however, there are some pleasures that are intrinsically better than others (higher and lower pleasures).  If I understand correctly, Mill says that if you have two things that bring you pleasure and you prefer one without any involvement of moral obligation that is intrinsically the better one even if it brings you discomfort later. If you were to be invited to go drinking with a friend, choosing between being sober and drunk, you know that being sober is better for you in the long run.  However being drunk brings pleasure now where as being sober brings pleasure later.  Through Mill's argument, if you go out, being drunk is intrinsically better than if you were to go home and do work regardless of whether it is morally right or not.  I think that this point contradicts his main argument of trying to promote the absence of pain and increase pleasure.