Not the true meaning.

John Stuart Mill writes Utilitarianism to portray his views of how actions can cause happiness and pleasure. With that, he defines utility as how much happiness for the greatest amount of people you can get with the least amount of pain that comes from it. He also states that there is always going to be  a proportion between the amount of happiness and the amount of pain endured. Mill created the Greatest Happiness Principle to help understand all of this, which basically says that it is important to maximize utility so that one gets the most happiness while also having the least amount of pain.

At first I thought this was an obviously a good thing and would maximize happiness, but then once pondering upon the idea of the Greatest Happiness Principle I took into context that different people have different ideas of happiness and pain. For example, if someone has 3 apples and 5 oranges to give away, one person may see the 3 apples to have more pleasure and take them even though there are less of them, while another person could see that there are more apples so they think that more quantity is more pleasure. Another flaw I see is that a person doesn't always act completely in their own self-interest. One man may want to make another man achieve their greatest level of happiness and personally have less happiness, that  throws the whole sense of utility away. Every theory has flaws, which is why it is only a theory.

Both of the flaws I found I think are in accordance with the second misunderstanding, where the critic said that Utilitarianism isn't a good moral theory, he based that upon Mill stating that the meaning of life is by finding the most pleasure, which I disagree with along with the critic.