<p>This paper defends the economic approach to human behavior against recent critiques from the Humanomics literature. We argue that scholars in that literature often mischaracterize economics as assuming narrow self-interest, when in fact it is a method for analyzing purposeful action under constraints, regardless of motivation. Using examples from charity, blood donation, and political behavior, we show that the economic approach can account for moral and social behavior within the standard framework of utility maximization. By contrast, Humanomics lacks falsifiability and generality. We conclude that economics requires a more consistent application of its core insights, not a new paradigm.</p>