Did John Stuart Mill's 'Rule Utilitarianism' improve upon Bentham's 'Act Utilitarianism'?

Utilitarianism is the ethical theory which argues that a morally good act is one that brings about the greatest pleasure or happiness for the greatest number of people. Jeremy Bentham devised 'Act Utilitarianism', where he argued that a moral agent must calculate every act and decide whether it will bring about the most pleasure for the most amount of people. John Stuart Mill's 'Rule Utilitarianism' then built upon Bentham's theory through incorporating rules that tend to lead to happiness. In addition to this, he qualified the difference between higher and lower pleasures. This question asks whether these additions of Mill made Bentham's version of Utilitarianism a better theory for moral decision making. I will argue that they do not.Firstly, some would argue that Mill's use of higher and lower pleasures improves upon Bentham's theory. Bentham's theory did not qualify pleasures, meaning that pleasures are not distinguish apart from each other. As long as they bring about more pleasure than pain, then they are justified. For example, if cockfighting brought more pleasure than philosophical education, then in 'Act Utilitarianism', it is deemed a more moral activity. Mill's distinction aimed to counteract this, by arguing that intellectual activities are more valuable than activities that satisfy bodily appetites. Therefore it could be argued that Mill improves Bentham's theory because intellectual activities are valued above bodily ones. However, this distinguishing between higher and lower pleasures is an inherently elitist distinction. Separating these pleasures is elitist because not everyone has access to the higher pleasures. For example, if a group of people get enjoyment from football and not from philosophical debate, it is wrong to deem what brings them pleasure as less valuable, as their interests and happiness will be ignored. Therefore, Mill's theory does not improve upon Bentham, but rather makes it elitist.Secondly, some would argue that Mill does improve on Bentham's theory because Bentham's theory of working out the amount of pleasure individual acts bring about is, firstly, time consuming and, secondly, it allows for unjust acts to be justified. For example, a man might get a great deal of pleasure from murdering someone. If this act brings about more pleasure for the murderer, then this would be deemed moral under Bentham's theory. Mill's incorporation of rules that generally lead to the most happiness for the most people avoids this, as 'do not kill' is a rule that generally leads to happiness. Therefore it could be argued that Mill's theory improves upon Bentham's theory as these rules prohibit unjust acts as being deemed moral. However, Mill's rules strip Utilitarianism of any flexibility it had under 'Act Utilitarianism'. If you have to follow the rule 'do not kill' because it generally leads to happiness, then it prohibits you from changing the direction of the train so it kills only one person tied to the tracks and not ten. Therefore, Mill does not improve upon Bentham's theory, as his rules make it rigid and inflexible.