On the outcome of Utility

In J.S. Mill’s writings on utilitarianism he defends common misunderstandings in the philosophy and its implications. Mill begins by defining the concept as actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure, and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain, and the privation of pleasure. This idea is known as the Greatest Happiness Principle which he supports with the explanation that everyone seeks happiness/pleasure and therefore we can all guide ourselves with the idea that our actions consequences should bring the most amount of pleasure to the most amount of people.  Some argue that the idea has hedonist downfalls however Mill argues that, “the happiness which forms the utilitarian standard of what is right in conduct… not the agent’s own happiness” We should be acting not only for our own happiness but for others happiness as well.  Another critique is that it is a “pig philosophy” some believe that if all people value is pleasure than everyone will fall into the trap of choosing lower pleasure such as gluttony. Mill argues however that people value the higher pleasures like imagination or intellectual thought and discussion.  Some might choose lower pleasure over higher ones however they usually choose those lower pleasure with an end goal in sight i.e. a monk will give up the higher pleasure in life but with the end goal of finding spiritual enlightenment.  I would agree with Mill to a certain point however I find much pleasure in both lower and higher pleasure for instant I love to have deep philosophical talks but I allow enjoy the relaxation provided from taking a bath and I don’t think that their is anything wrong in finding pleasure in such things.  In fact if someone decides that those lower pleasure bring them more joy then higher ones then it shouldn’t be considered a downfall to the philosophy as a whole. Is the critic intended to show a flaw in the idea or is it, “gotcha” argument.