Capitalism, Means, Ends

It is unclear if he realizes it, but Mill abandons Consequentialism when he asserts that 'higher' pleasures are superior to 'lower' ones.  For, as the tautological appearance of the assertion belies, a deeper, contingent, thesis is being obscured.  That deeper thesis contrasts different means to pleasure, e. g. reading a book vs. drinking whiskey, i. e. the 'higher'-'lower' contrast is actually that of two different means to pleasure, one 'Spiritual' in some respect, the other 'Physical', in some respect.  But, if the Means to an End is the bearer of Value, then Consequentialism is abandoned.  So, the status of Means in Utilitarianism is problematic.  Now, Capitalism is Utilitarian, i. e. one ought to maximize Profit, because the maximization of Profit is the best Consequence.  But, then it devalues the Means to Profit, so Capitalism does not inherently distinguish between, say, profitable labor, profitable chance, profitable stealing, or profitable enslavement.  In other words, the popular charge against Marxism--'The ends justify the means--does apply to Capitalism.