It remains to be seen whether the altruistic kind of happiness wouldn't be just as self-destructive and stagnating. Sharing was the norm in our nomadic Stone Age. Do you want to go back to that condition? Would you want to live in a hippie commune? Do you want to be a monk with no private property?

Jesus's ethics entail that we should surrender our ego and thus give up entirely on secular progress and social competition. He happened to say as much because he thought the world was going to end soon, which was erroneous. Now, maybe absolute altruism is defensible on other grounds, and we shouldn't commit the genetic fallacy here.

But it seems clear to me that radical altruists would be susceptible to being exploited by fraudsters, including priests and false messiahs or gurus. The only defense would be to hope that God will sort everything out in the end. Without that divine guarantee, those who are happy to give away everything they have in this life would have to wonder whether their slave morality is just propaganda for a hidden form of amoral social dominance (as in the wealth of the Catholic Church or of televangelists or Christian cult leaders).

In short, that moral type of happiness could be a con.