Few human creatures would consent to be changed into any of the lower animals, for a promise of the fullest allowance of a beast's pleasures; no intelligent human being would consent to be a fool, no instructed person would be an ignoramus, no person of feeling and conscience would be selfish and base, even though they should be persuaded that the fool, the dunce, or the rascal is better satisfied with his lot than they are with theirs… A being of higher faculties requires more to make him happy, is capable probably of more acute suffering, and certainly accessible to it at more points, than one of an inferior type; but in spite of these liabilities, he can never really wish to sink into what he feels to be a lower grade of existence… It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied.
If the answer is yes, we must make a utilitarian calculation to decide whether there is still a greater good for the greatest number.
McCloskey:  Suppose that a sheriff were faced with the choice either of framing a Negro for a rape that had aroused hostility to the Negroes a particular Negro generally being believed to be guilty but whom the sheriff knows not to be guilty —and thus preventing serious anti-Negro riots which would probably lead to some loss of life and increased hatred of each other by whites and Negroes—or of hunting for the guilty person and thereby allowing the anti-Negro riots to occur, while doing the best he can to combat them.
Combine this criterion of rightness with a view that we should be actively trying to promote overall happiness, and one has a serious incompatibility with psychological egoism.
It is only so far as control by the state is limited that the individual is free. Should people follow act utilitarianism or rule utilitarianism? Breaking Down Utilitarianism Jeremy Bentham describes his "greatest happiness principle" in Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, a publication in which he writes: "Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure.
And therein lay the greatest utility for society and business. A person's relations with others—even if important—are not essential and describe nothing that is, strictly speaking, necessary to its being what it is.