Here on the site we frequently discuss a number of ways to go beyond economics. The idea of going beyond economics refers to both going beyond theory into application, and also to going beyond the mainstream of economics into unorthodox but interesting theories. Perhaps the two most common ways we address the latter here is through investigations into political science or religion through the lens of economics.
Eric Hovind recently interviewed Owen Strachan, I believe at an NRB conference, regarding the activities of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. The view of CBMW boils down to complimentarianism. One question is whether such a doctrine really is biblical. A separate question is whether complimentarianism is good for reasons other than religious reasons, and this is where the economics comes in.
Family structure matters for economic decision making. I think it would be interesting to test whether a complimentarian family makes better economic choices compared to alternative structures.
The reason such a question is interesting is because it would help prove or disprove certain claims:
- Efficiency is theologically good.
- Biblical morality is economically efficient.
- Morality is objective.
- Qualified morality (‘theologically good’ and ‘economically good’) is either oxymoronic or reconcilable with other forms of qualified morality, because they are all subsets of unqualified morality. If this is true then morality would be objective because it would be sensible to discuss without qualification or subjectivity.
- The Bible is true and evidentially confirmed.