Holy cow, C.K., that's heavy reading for this time of night!
I gather that the page your link takes us to was written by the college professor in California? I find "the controversial consumer theory of economics which claims that consumer happiness is a function of the goods consumed..." patently ridiculous. If I own 14 cars, does that make me "happy"? If that number won't do it, what about 1400? If someone loves me, would I not then be listed as "happy", because being loved isn't a countable consumer good?

"Jeremy Bentham believed that one could quantify all types of activities similar to the way a consumer theorist does. There were four criteria: intensity, duration, certainty, and nearness." This I can accept, since he specifies
activities, though I need a clarification of his four criteria: his ex. was supremely unhelpful to me.

"Bentham stated, "Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters - pain and pleasure. It is for them alone to point out what we ought to do, as well as determine what we should do." " This, too, I can agree with, as far as any examples I can think of go--though this requires that things be reduced to the most basic level.
Example: say that we knew that we would have our arms amputated by the act of pushing a child to safety out of the path of an oncoming train. Would we do it for a cat?
What if it was the seeing-eye dog that allowed a beloved neighbor to be independent? This brings in Mills' assertion that the judging of every action is inevitably tied to its consequences, and also the pain-pleasure factor.
For some things we are willing to endure tremendous pain;
others, not. Sometimes our actions are a result of having to choose between a greater pain and a lesser pain.

This made me smile in amusement: "Since our passions guide us (Hume) and our passions are to maximize pleasure, and minimize pain (Bentham), why not do so efficiently." Sounds just like an engineer! (The students of which this
presentation was written for.)

Mills' "testing" technique leaves, may I say, rather something to be desired: "This method is called the well-informed principle, which said that the best way to distinguish between higher pleasures and lower pleasures was to see what verdict a group of competent judges would render on an act. In other words, those who had experienced a group of particular pleasures the most would be in a position to say which ones were higher and which one were lower. For example, to determine what type of pleasure listening to Motley Crue compared to Beethoven would be, someone who is intimately familiar with the music of Motley Crue, and is also intimately familiar with the music of Beethoven would render a verdict as to which is the "higher" pleasure. " No further comment. The author goes into more detail on this.

The author makes a point later of discussing how some judgments of what is morally acceptable are specific to the community that has assigned the judgment. And his last paragraph reminded me vividly of our own little community:
"Mill believed that like an organism, a political entity must grow in order to flourish. Growth occurs best when there is a marketplace of ideas from which to choose. This marketplace of ideas would provide a classic defense of free speech. Since we want our community to grow, and since growth is dependant on good ideas, we must not silence any ideas. We must allow them into the 'marketplace' of political societies, and see how they fare. Censorship would thwart this purpose, so all must be allowed to introduce their ideas without fear of retribution. A community interested in growth will want the "cream to rise to the top." The best way for this to occur is to allow a free-market economy of ideas. According to Mill, if we don't do this, we would be like a Chinese ladies' foot that is not allowed to grow or we would be like a monkey that impersonates everything it sees, while having no originality of its own."