Capitalism, Formal Causality, Greed

Mill's 'higher' vs. 'lower' contrast is beyond the scope of Consequentialism.  Instead, it is based on a concept of Character that has a long tradition, originating with Plato and Aristotle.  Now, though the latter classifies it otherwise, the control by the 'higher', i. e. Reason, of the 'lower', i. e. animal impulses is an instance of Formal Causality.  Accordingly, the evaluation of Character is in terms of the efficacy of Formal Causality, e. g. Vice consists in a failure of Reason to control impulses.  Thus, for example, Greed is a Vice, according to Aristotle, primarily because it consists in a lack of such control, independent of consequences, such as the violation of the well-being of another.  Likewise, seeking more than one needs, e. g. Profit-seeking, is, on the basis of Formal Causality, a Vice, even if, on the basis of Teleological Causality, e. g. for a Consequentialist like Smith, it is a Virtue.  In other words, according to an Ethics of Character, what Ends do not justify is Vice.  So, Mill does not recognize the broader implications of his 'higher'-'lower' contrast, which he seems to regard as a minor ad hoc device, implications that include a criticism of Capitalist behavior that is independent of its inconsideration of the General Happiness.