It is nonsensical to say that the actual coins that are money are a part of my feeling of pleasure. This is clearly a result of the naturalistic fallacy, as the means are often taken to be a part of the definition of the ends when the naturalistic fallacy is present. Moore s final argument against Mill s claim that things such as money and virtue are a part of happiness is as follows. Some things, such as money and virtue, are desired as a part of happiness. Money is a purely physical thing.
Happiness is a purely mental thing.
If 2 and 3, money cannot be a part of happiness. Money cannot be a part of happiness. Although Moore s above argument appears valid, there is a possible error. Moore fails to consider that perhaps money is not something physical, but rather something mental that is only represented by physical coins. The laws of inflation and deflation support this idea, as the physical coins do not necessarily change because of inflation, but their value does, suggesting that money goes beyond the purely physical.