'Inevitable and Unacceptable?' Methodological Rawlsianism in Anglo-American Political Philosophy

This article attempts two parallel tasks. First, it gives a sympathetic explication of the implicit working methodology ('Methodological Rawlsianism') of mainstream contemporary political theory in the English-speaking world. And second, principally in footnotes, it surveys the recent literature on justification to see what light these debates cast on the tenets of this methodology. It is worth examining methodological presuppositions because these can have a profound influence on substantive theories: many of the differences between philosophical traditions can be traced to their methodologies. My aim is to expose the central features of methodological Rawlsianism in order to challenge critics of this tradition to explain exactly where and why they depart from the method. While I do not defend it at length, I do suggest that methodological Rawlsianism is inevitable insofar as it is basically a form of common sense. This fact should probably lower expectations about the amount of progress consistent methodological Rawlsians are likely to make in grounding comprehensive normative political theories.     

In the wake of a negligent release law suit

Several staff members at a state psychiatric hospital were found negligent in a jury trial for having released a psychiatric patient who subsequently killed a member of the plaintiff's family. This study explored the impact of the law suit on the hospital staff members as individuals and on the functioning of the institution. Self-report measures revealed that both named defendants and nondefendant staff experienced symptoms of emotional disturbance associated with the litigation. Self-report measures suggest that the law suit was not instructive in any meaningful way regarding improved procedures for subsequent release decision making. Archival data indicate that the staff did release significantly fewer patients during the trial and follow-up period than prior to the litigation. Results are discussed in the context of Wexler's concept of therapeutic jurisprudence.This study was supported by a grant from the Research Grants Committee of the University of Alabama. The results are the opinions of the authors and do not reflect the opinions of the Research Grants Committee or the University of Alabama. We are indebted to Saleem Shah for his suggestions regarding methodology and particularly the need to investigate positive and instructive aspects of law suits.     

The reduction of male abusiveness as a result of treatment: Reality or myth?

A 6-month outpatient treatment program for male abusers emphasized honesty, shame reduction, and group support for change. Ratings on the Abusive Behavior Inventory (ABI) obtained before and immediately after treatment demonstrated a significant decrease in physical and psychological abuse as rated by both the abusers and their female partners. This decrease in male abusiveness was maintained 6 months and two years after completion of treatment for those couples who cooperated in followup. No decrease in male abusiveness was observed during treatment, however, for those couples who did not cooperate in the followup. The authors suggest that the noncooperative female partners may have been afraid to rate their partners because of continued abuse. Therefore, the selective attrition of subjects who did not improve is a major problem in evaluating the apparent long-term success of treatment.