Mill on Pleasures

In class on Wednesday, we discussed John Stuart Mill and his theory of utilitarianism. It is based upon the idea that an action is moral in proportion to how much happiness and pleasure that it produces. At first, I was a bit skeptical of this theory because it seemed to be somewhat lacking in noble purpose.

We then went on to discuss how pleasures are ranked in terms of millian ethics. Certain pleasures are classified in categories of what is a higher and lower pleasure. Lower pleasures were said to be those that we share with other animals (i.e. sleeping, eating, drinking, etc.), and the higher pleasures were named as success, learning, art, love, etc. Mill believed that when faced with a choice, a person would always choose a higher pleasure than a lower one. 

Perhaps I'm not understanding this fully (or missing the point completely), but the problem that I see with this is obvious. I disagree in the sense that given the right situation, almost anyone would choose the lower pleasure rather than the higher. For instance, a person who is starving to death would always choose the lower pleasure (food), over any of the higher pleasures mentioned. It is impossible to attain any of the higher pleasures without first fulfilling the lower pleasures. If you don't have one, you don't have the other--it's as simple as that. If you're starving, how can you have feelings of love? If you're sleepy, how can you enjoy a play? This is why one cannot be said to be superior to the other. The lower pleasures are necessary to our survival and on that basis, a comparison should not be made with the higher pleasures.