In his latest column, Jonah Goldberg takes Kerry to task for his invoking of religion during the third debate.

The column prompted several responses on the role of morality in society, and the origin of that morality. I only bring it up because it really follows my own latest column well.

Here's Goldberg's column, and here's all the comments that were posted on NRO, in order: one, two, three, four, five, six, seven.

Hope I got all those right. The first couple of comments agree with the premise that, without God, there is no basis for morality.

If this world is an accident and life the same then there is NO morality. It's all just choices.

Steve has made this argument in the past. On one hand, I agree: if there's no God, then there's no basis for our morality other than what we, humans, the highest power in existence, decide.

On the other hand, if there's no God, then murder is the absolute worst thing you can do to somebody, because that's the absolute end. No afterlife. What happens here on Earth is all there is, so we have to do what's required to make sure our lives are good ones. There's no reward after life for doing good during life.

The next guy makes that point:

...forming social covenants (i.e. government) that cause us to pledge to respect, in a variety of ways, the self-interest of others, is in all of our self-interests. Because, given the uncertainty of the future, even if we're strong today, we could be weak tomorrow -- or given our biological urge to procreate and pass on our genetic code, our offspring generations from now could be opporessed by those who are stronger in the future, if we do not form a society to protect their freedoms.

And

The world is as we know it today largely based on the actions of billions of people, over the course of history, all working according to their own self-interest as best they've understood it.

We have a standard of morality in the world, and while not perfect, it's a damn good one. But we have six thousand years of human thought to thank for it -- not a supernatural deity.

Another commenter dissents:

Self-interest does not account for any of the most important things in life. Why do soldiers die for their country? Why would anyone die for anything, if self-interest reigned? A parent for a child? A husband for a wife? Sane people will acknowledge that these actions are "good".

As your first correspondent correctly pointed out, morality cannot be explained without reference to an Absolute -- i.e., God. You cannot say, `this is good' and `that is bad' without implicitly relying on a standard of perfect goodness.

Suppose you just bought a $100 pair of Gucci shoes. You're walking along and see a child drowning in a lake. You don't have time to take off your shoes, and they'll be ruined if you jump in.

The child, or the shoes?

Self-interest seems to suggest the latter. Conscience, on the other hand, demands the former.

I would argue that my self-interest isn't always rewarded monetarily: there are other rewards I also value, such as the internal reward I receive from helping somebody else.

However, if there's no God and therefore no actual basis for morality other than mutual self-interest, then that internal reward is just an illusion. Nothing more than a series of chemical reactions in the tissues of my brain.

I think the relationship between self-interest and societal/individual good is a lot more complicated (dare I say nuanced?) than a simple either/or statement: self-interest is inherently selfish, but that selfishness paradoxically requires us to establish societal mores and cooperation.

However, individual self-interest and God's instructions on morality are not mutually exclusive. After all, isn't it in my own self-interest to follow God's word?