Our society encourages us to be successful and tells us that if we have wealth and extravagant material things, we'll be happy. But is this really the case? Do money and wealth buy happiness? More and more research is being done in the new field of positive psychology to suggest that no, extreme wealth is not the source of happiness; the wealthy are not significantly happier than those of lower financial status. In fact, some of the happiest people in the world simply have enough to get by and survive, and yet what makes them so happy is the love they are surrounded by and their appreciation for what they do have. So this leads me to question why wealth is so important in our society, and is it immoral to be wealthy when such severe poverty exists just around the corner, across town, across the country, and across the world? In this paper, I intend to prove that one's happiness is not increased by excessive wealth and therefore it is an individual's moral obligation to share it with others who are less fortunate, according to both ethical egoism and utilitarianism. I'll begin with a true story that Tom Shadyac tells in his documentary, "I Am." Long ago, there was a tribe where everyone contributed and all were taken care of. Regardless of if you were sick, elderly or weak, your needs were met. No one took more than they needed and everyone had a fair share. Then, one day, the best hunter in the tribe said to himself, "I bring back more meat than anyone else, why shouldn't I be allowed to keep the bounty of my hunt?' and he began storing his meat in a high mountain cave. Other hunters saw what he was doing and began doing the same. Suddenly, the young children in the tribe stopped being encouraged to be generous and more and more we're encouraged to compete, be the best, and accumulate as much as possible to be wealthy. For the first time, the weak, sick and elderly began to become poor and starve. As the rich became richer, they crushed the poor who became poorer, and this went unrecognized as unusual because it was the norm. Now this story isn't true because it happened, it's true because it's happening. We are that tribe; this is our story (Shadyac). In contrast, there is a tribe today in Africa called the Ju/'Hoansi, which does not have the same type of story. They are still hunter-gatherers and their core value continues to be generosity. If a man makes a kill while hunting, it is not considered his meat, but everyone's, and it is brought back to the community to be shared by all. No one goes hungry, everyone contributes, and all are taken care of. If and when any member of their community becomes selfish, keeping things to themselves and refusing to contribute, they are essentially exiled and left to fend for themselves. Generosity is such a core value in their community and so essential to their survival that anyone who chooses not to participate is simply not tolerated (Lee). Another prime example of a community that is far less focused on selfishness and much more on generosity exists in Denmark. Well known for its social equality, high standard of living, free education through college and free healthcare for life, Denmark ranks as one of the happiest countries in the world. About one percent of the Danish population (around 50,000 people) lives in multiple family, cross-generational, co-housing communities. These communities have high reports of happiness which stem from the priority they place on the intrinsic values of community, close relationships, and more time for relaxation (Alloro, 2011, p 37). So far, I've shared a metaphorical history of our society, followed by two examples of societies outside of our country who have avoided our fate of greed and self-interest. The Ju/'Hoansi people as well as the Danish demonstrate how important generosity and community are for our species to thrive and live in optimum happiness. Their lifestyles, philosophies and ways of living contribute to a happier and more balanced society than we in America currently have. Furthermore, a famous article written by Andrew Carnegie, entitled "The Gospel of Wealth," shares Carnegie's view that the rich have a moral obligation to use their money to benefit society. Carnegie became extremely wealthy in the railroad business in the late 1800s and had a lot of views about what should be done with the wealth one accumulates. In the article, he examines the idea of distributing accumulated wealth and capital within the communities they originate from. H