I remember reading The Rational Optimist by Matt Ridley, and I think there was a section on trade.
Basically he said that society progresses when there is trade, and trade only really takes off when there is trust.
It might be morality that is the underpinning of trust.
Morality is just the "tit-for-tat with forgiveness" (supercooperator) strategy in the prisoners dilemma game. And this strategy being present in the mix of popular strategies (including sociopathic defection) results in the social dynamics and 100 year economic cycles we see in the history books. Organism/tribe/state population frequencies for the defect and supercooperator strategies periodically dominate the planet and the economy on about a 50-100 yr cycles, and the period between pendulum swings is shortening with technological advancements. Just chart global social inequality for the past 1000 years or so and you'll see the pattern. We're in the depths of the minimum of the supercooperator sine wave right now with socioeconomic inequality at its peak. Eventually the sociopaths start fighting each other and leave a niche open for supercooperators to come back.
The worth of morality may depend on how good is framed.
I associate good with being happy and recognize that needs (food, shelter, health, safeness) are critical precursors to being happy.
So I first equate good with that which satisfies needs. If needs are met, I associate good with things that lead to broad, lasting fulfillment.
I express morality in similar terms. From my perspective, worthwhile morality is identified by the way it advances broad, organic, persistent happiness and immorality can describe that which knowingly advances broad, actual unhappiness.