Mr. Yaron Brook says,
If morality is about the pursuit of your own success and happiness, then giving money away to strangers is, in comparison, not a morally significant act. (And it's outright wrong if done on the premise that renunciation is moral.)
Personally, I would take no offense to Yaron Brook's moralist label for myself. I would state, for his enlightenment, I neither ignore nor condemn the earning of money. Yaron Brook's above statement with parenthetical is like the loaded mouse trap which failed to spring.
First, he packages an updated morality under the Science, freedom and the pursuit of personal profit label.
Then, he peddles his Science, freedom and the pursuit of personal profit morality dogma for our learning on Gates and Buffett's coattails, two men well-known of good reputation.
Brook won't thread the morality question on those who amass their fortunes in drug trade and other evils. Even less would he dare thread on them were they to give away their money as benefactors to charitable non-profit organizations. Furthermore, do you think he would pounce were a drug lord to renounce his riches and became an eager benefactor as the result of moral pangs in his conscience? Hence, Yaron Brook's moral argument could no more spring to catch a mouse than a evil doer among men.
This is not an updated moral code. However, it is quickly becoming known as the blind-folded atheists' anemic morality.