Jeremy Bentham's (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Bentham)
"pleasure calculus" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felicific_calculus)
lists seven elements to consider when making a choice between
pleasurable or potentially pleasurable activities:
Intensity: How strong is the pleasure?
Duration: How long will the pleasure last?
Certainty or uncertainty: How likely or unlikely is it that the
pleasure will occur?
Propinquity or remoteness: How soon will the pleasure occur?
Fecundity: The probability that the action will be followed by
sensations of the same kind.
Purity: The probability that it will not be followed by sensations
of the opposite kind.
Extent: How many people will be affected?
If you accept this system, the "propinquity or remoteness" criteria
suggests that short-term pleasure is more beneficial, whereas the
"duration" criteria suggests that the long-term pleasure is more
beneficial. As with any philosophical system, Bentham's calculus
doesn't tell you which choice to make (you have to weigh the two
possible criteria yourself), but it does answer your question: if you
accept Bentham's view of utilitarianism, yes, it's quite possible that
propinquitous (immediate) pleasure outweighs long-term loss.
Your post strongly suggests that you prefer long-term benefits over
short-term ones, since you use phrases like "skimp", "cut corners",
"not healthy", "incurable", "is it still right" (suggesting it's not),
etc. Here are some balancing thoughts for propinquitous pleasure(in no
Certainty: while most people agree that fast food, skipping health
maintenance appointments and casual sex are "bad for you" and reduce
your life expectancy, this is a vague and undefined risk. There's no
guarentee that any of things will give you displeasure in the future
and there are things you can do (eg, safe sex) to make future
displeasure even less certain.
Intensity: the benefits of cooking your own food, health
maintenance, avoid sexual disease, and perfectionism are fairly
mild. Living a long and healthy life is nice, but that kind of
pleasure is passive and not intense. Perfectionism for the sake of
perfectionism may give you pleasure in knowing you did the job
"right", but this, again, seems like minor self-satisfaction, not
intense pleasure. In this case, I'd say it's a tie.
Intensity: Sexual pleasure is intense, even when repeated, but the
intensity of avoiding sexual disease is very low, as above.
Fecundity: casual sex probably will lead to more casual sex as you
build up a group of casual sex partners.
Purity: perfectionism may give you some pleasure, but
perfectionism is often annoying to coworkers and employers, because
perfectionists often inefficiently spend too much time working on a
single project, focus too much on a small detail, don't accept help
from others, or even come up with rigid designs that are hard to
change in the future. Perfectionism is an impure pleasure because it
leads to things that may cause you displeasure.
You note "even if it works for the majority", but I don't think that's
an argument to "extent", and seems a little out of place.
Utilitarianism deems something "right" if it works, almost by
definition. Therefore, if something works for the majority,
utilitarianism says it's "right" for the majority, which would seem to
work against your arugment that it's not "right" under
utilitarianism. However, I don't think what the majority does affects
your decisions that much, nor vice versa, so it seems irrelevant.
In conclusion, I'd say you can make a strong argument that immediate
pleasure can outweigh long-term benefits under the doctorine of
utilitarianism, even though your question appears to be biased against