In this article, I examine Mill's distinction between higher and lower pleasures that he presents in his Utilitarianism. Thus, I will raise objections to Mill's distinction by focusing on the ambiguity of his definition of pleasures and his concept of a competent judge. I conclude that by recalculating the definition of pleasures, his distinction between higher and lower pleasures can support a broader theory of utilitarianism.1. Examining Mill's Distinction Utilitarianism is a moral theory rooted in the belief that happiness, understood as pleasure and the deprivation of pain, is the only thing that is intrinsically good. Mill's endorsement of this “greatest happiness principle” is as follows: 1.1: “The creed which accepts “utility” or the “greatest happiness principle” as the foundation of morality holds that actions are right in proportion which tend to promote happiness; wrong because they tend to produce the opposite of happiness. By happiness we mean pleasure and the absence of pain; from unhappiness, pain and the deprivation of pleasure”. Thus, it seems that Mill is inclined to accept a version of Bentham's hedonistic utilitarianism. That is, Mill appears to advocate a quantitative theory of utilitarianism, which works on the basis of maximizing the duration and intensity of pleasure. However, later in Utilitarianism, Mill faces an objection regarding the idea that utilitarianism is a theory that "favors sensual or voluptuous activities (e.g. thumbtack) over higher or nobler activities (e.g. poetry )". Thus, he makes the distinction between pleasures of the intellect, higher pleasure, and sensual, lower pleasures. This is to ensure that utilitarianism is not seen as “a doctrine worthy only of pigs”. Mill's utilitarianism and higher and lower pleasures applying an interpretation based on the writings of Donner and Schmidt-Petri. Works Cited Brink, David, "Mill's Moral and Political Philosophy", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall Edition 2008), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = . section 2.3Donner, W. and Fumerton, R. Mill, Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009, 4-5, 15-35. Green, T. H., 1883, Prolegomena to Ethics, ed. D. Brink, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2003.Mill, John Stuart. Utilitarianism. The classical utilitarians: Bentham and Mill. Edited by John Troyer. Hackett Publishing Co., 2003.West, Henry R. An Introduction to Mill's Utilitarian Ethics. Cambridge University Press, 2004. 48-73