I think we have to ask what purpose money serves and whether those purposes are moral or not (or, at the very least, benign).
The bulk of the evidence from the social sciences suggest a person possessing money beyond what might be loosely called a comfortable life (adequate food, clothing, shelter, transportation, medical care, etc.) serves no positive purpose.
People who are very wealthy are no happier than people who make upper-middle-class incomes. Meanwhile, most wealth beyond what provides a decent comfortable life ends up being invested in two major areas:
1) Conspicuous consumption (people buy $30,000 Rolexes rather than $30 Casios even though both tell the time equally well)
2) Subversion of society/politics. For example, Betsy DeVos is NOT our Secretary of Education nominee because of her brilliant work in education policy, nor even because she's the best possible advocate for the education policies she and her political bedfellows favor. She's the nominee because she donated a s**t-ton of money to the GOP.