I have no quarrel with saying "philosophy" rather than "theology,"   
although as a practical matter all of the philosophical views will   
terminate in statements that cannot be philosophically demonstrated,   
and constitute, therefore, a theology. But whether one calls it a   
philosophy or a theology, we seem to be agreed that the questions   
cannot be resolved from within economics itself. The economist who   
does not refer his basic terms to philosophy and/or theology simply   
ends in an unbreakable circular logic, assuming what he should be   
proving, and unable to communicate with schools that use different   
philosophical assumptions, for the simple reason that he does not   
recognize his assumptions as philosophical/theological.  
  
Ethics shows the same problems, since any system of ethics must be   
derived from some view of the ends and purposes of man, that is, from   
a teleology. So then, if you believe that man's purpose is to be   
happy with God in heaven, you might derive one set of ethics, and if   
you believe that his purpose is endless accumulation, you might   
derive another set. But neither statement, (nor any other possible   
statement) can be philosophically demonstrated; they will all   
terminate in a belief about what man is. Therefore the teleological   
question (and hence the theological question) cannot be avoided. It   
can be hidden, covered up, and so forth, but upon examination, each   
economist will be shown to be using, implicitly or explicitly, a   
teleology and hence a theology.  
  
John Medaille