The paper attempts to identify the bone of contention concerning the extension of the neoclassical economic approach to traditional domains of other social sciences. The extension of the optimization hypothesis to the study of crime, status, and ideology - known as »economics imperialism> - definitely advances a universal social science. The paper tries to expose the crux of the debate surrounding such a broad scope of economics. The paper maintains that the central bone of contention concerns whether interest and moral commitment, understood as preferred interest, are commensurable as claimed by the optimization hypothesis of orthodox neoclassical economics. The paper argues, the commitment/interest commensurability issue is at the heart of the scope of economics debate. The paper tries to show that the universality of economics thesis is not about, first, whether moral utility is independent of pecuniary utility. Second, it is not about whether the taste for fine arts and the taste for American-style wrestling are commensurable. Third, the thesis is not about whether tastes are given or whether they are endogenously determined by sociocultural values. Fourth, the universality thesis is not about the tradeoff between self-interest and other-interest (i.e., altruism). For that matter, fifth, it is not about the determination of preferences per se. Rather, the paper maintains, the universality of economics thesis stands or falls depending on whether the taste for commitment (i.e., preferred moral principles and rules of justice) is smoothly substitutable with interest.
