For the sake of this discussion I define economics as the choices rational people make.[1] In other words, why people make the choices they make and not just fiscal decisions but all decisions. Why do they accept one job offer over another. Why did they choose to marry this person over another? Why do they drink Jack Daniels instead of Jim Beam? The assumption is that rational people make decisions based on a subjective cost-benefit analysis according to their personal preferences.
Morality is also subjective, it varies widely across individuals, cultures and societies[2]. For the sake of this discussion I define morality as not forcing others to do something they don’t want to do. Immorality would be if you want somebody to give you money and they refuse so you take it by force. Or you want to have sex with someone and they refuse so you force yourself on them.
The question is: does economics precede morality as claimed by some socio-political ideologies? Will the individual make decisions based on his subjective cost-benefit analysis even if it means he has to force others to do something they don’t want to do? If he doesn’t have to force others to do something they don’t want to do then the question of morality is irrelevant. The concept of right is irrelevant without the concept of wrong.
The argument that economics precedes morality implies a causal relationship. It implies that morality is a function of economics and that once the economic decision is made, the morality is out of the control of the individual. That if the economics dictates they have to force others to do something they don’t want to do then that’s what they should/would do. But whether the individual has to force others to do things they don’t want to do also figures into the economic analysis. There are potential consequences to using force on people that have to be considered as a cost in the cost-benefit analysis. That doesn’t mean everyone will weigh those costs the same. A hardened criminal may decide that those costs are acceptable while others will not. Some will consider the burden on their conscience too great to live with others will not.
This implies that the economic decision of a rational person is a function of that person’s subjective preferences and their sense of morality, not the other way around. The idea that economics precedes morality assumes an objective sense of morality. It assumes that even if the economic analysis is a net benefit then the individual will not do it if it means having to use force against others and we know that’s just not the case.
[1] The definition of rational here simply means someone who makes the decision where the benefits outweigh the costs based on his personal preferences.
[2] Excluding force of government’s preferences on society