Money Symbol Analysis

In his fourth chapter, Mill uses money as an analogy to illustrate the role of virtue in his ethical thought. He responds to critics who argue that virtue is “good in itself,” which these critics say disproves the utilitarian claim that happiness is the only inherent good. In response, Mill agrees that virtue is inherently good, and yet maintains the position that only happiness is inherently good. To explain this apparent contradiction, Mill uses a familiar example: virtue is like money. At first money is a means to something else (buying things). Then, people want what money gets them so badly that they begin to desire money itself. And this is fine: money even becomes “a principal ingredient of [people’s] conception of happiness,” and it is very difficult to conceive of a happy life that does not include it. Accordingly, Mill’s point is that money is good not as a means to happiness, but as part of happiness itself. This not only explains Mill’s argument about virtue, but also illuminates the nature of happiness, which is “not an abstract idea but a concrete whole.” It is the sum of all the good things one needs, wants, and does in a reasonably pleasurable, minimally painful (or maximally pleasurable, not-too-painful) existence. Virtue, Mill says, works the same way: being virtuous is an important part of a happy life, which means that desiring virtue in itself is merely desiring “a part of happiness.” Therefore, happiness remains the only inherent good—but its parts are also inherently good.