Utilitarianism, as a moral system, is basically one in which one creates a moral and ethical system based not in each specific action having an essential moral component in and of itself, but in terms of defining the morality of an action by the ends that it is achieved. Moreover, in utilitarianism, morality is linked solely to the satisfaction of desires and thus represents a sort of ethical hedonism: Utilitarianism is an approach to mortality that treats pleasure or desire-satisfaction as the element in human good and that regards the morality of actions as entirely dependent upon on consequences or results for human (or sentient) well-being.... most subsequent utilitarians discard religious traditions and social conventions in favor of treating human well-being or happiness as the touchstone for all moral evaluation

Honderich 890)

Although this is basically true of all utilitarian systems, it would be both overly simplistic and greatly inaccurate to assume, therefore, that all utilitarianism is the same. Indeed, there are different strains. While classical utilitarianism may hold for the necessity of maintaining and increasing the amount of happiness for the greatest number, other forms of utilitarianism might disagree. The classical utilitarian formation is problematic, because happiness is a vague and ill-defined term, because it can allow for individual barbarisms, and because it can justify systematic exclusion, such as racism. A better formulation of utilitarianism would be to suggest a scale by which one attempts simply to minimize suffering in all individuals. By employing this schema, we can avoid the problems that classical utilitarianism has altogether.

In the classical formulation of Utilitarianism, the idea is to...

Indeed, however, thi sconcpetion is desperately flawed from the very start. To begin with, the term happiness is vague and probably misleading. Indeed, a constant state of happines would not even be possible. Freud himself noted that happiness was a periodic phenomenon (as is pleasure), which can only experience in relation to sadness and pain. A continual state of happiness or pleasure is simply not possible. Pain, however, as a criteria make sense, because we all empirical know what pain is and can think of concrete ways to reduce suffering. Furthermore, such a particular scheme of events also enables the legitimizing of the worst kinds of barbarism and terrible acts on the micro level, still. One great example of this idea is in Ursula K. Leguin's story, "The Ones who Walk Away from Omelas." The story details a town which is an almost perfect paradise, except for the fact that the entire town is run on a system that works by torturing continually and terribly, one individual:
the child... sometimes speaks. "I will be good, " it says. "Please let me out. I will be good!" They never answer... It is naked. Its buttocks and thighs are a mass of festered sores, as it sits in its own excrement continually. They all know it is there, all the people of Omelas. Some of them have come to see it, others are content merely to know it is there. They all know that it has to be there. Some of them understand why, and some do not, but they all understand that their happiness, the beauty of their city, the tenderness of their friendships, the health of their children, the wisdom of their scholars, the skill of their makers, even the abundance of their harvest and the kindly weathers of their skies,…