A Rejoinder

Three commentaries on the Nesselroade and Molenaar target article in this issue are responded to in the interest of elaborating and defending the points of view expressed in our article. The commentaries feature philosophy of science, general structural modeling, and broad behavioral research perspectives. Responding to the commentaries afforded us the opportunity to clarify further matters that we deem critical to the fundamental matter of measurement in behavioral science, especially as it emphasizes (properly, we believe) the individual as the primary unit of analysis.     

Rejoinder to Wall

Edmund Wall's criticism of the author's earlier analysis of Hare's consequentialism and Kantian ethics claims that the author overlooked Hare's commitment to preference satisfaction as an “ultimate good.” This rejoinder points out that Hare never uses the phrase in question, nor any equivalent phrase or concept, in presenting his own arguments and refers only to the standard of “universalizability” as ultimate, in contexts that support the author's original argument. Hence Wall has only given us yet another example of how Hare's views can be misunderstood by philosophers who fail to attend to the details of Hare's approach.