本文關注的是，羅爾斯認為，包括倫理學理論的任何整全性的學說，並無助於提供建立政治體制之初的談判，而必須建立在「交疊共識」的政治運作之基礎。另一方面，康德的政治哲學屬於源自其道德哲學中的義務論，屬於整全性學說的架構。可是，他晚年主張由「倫理-公民社會」走向「法權-公民社會」，以為在「法權-公民社會」中才能保障個人倫理價值的實現，但羅爾斯認為這兩者社會之間的過渡存在著不相容性，並試圖割裂其中的連結而直接傾向「法權-公民社會」的建構。羅爾斯區別「道德的建構論」和「政治的建構論」，「理性的自律」和「政治的自律」，「道德價值」和「政治價值」等等觀念，這些釐清的工作正是他承繼康德、批判康德之後所建立的「政治自由主義」。 According to Rawls, among comprehensive doctrine including ethical theory could not help for every citizen’s bargain in initial situation of political system, instead of an overlapping consensus must be supported from each comprehensive doctrine. Kant’s political philosophy from his deontology of moral philosophy belongs to some kind of comprehensive doctrine. Kant claims that “ethisch-bürgerlichen Gesellschaft”should trend to “rechtlich-bürgerlichen Gesellschaft” in which everybody would realize oneself’s ethical value. Nonetheless Rawls argues that there would be a gap from ethisch-bürgerlichen Gesellschaft” toward “rechtlich-bürgerlichen Gesellschaft”, because of the priority of right over the good (value). In “rechtlich-bürgerlichen Gesellschaft,” Kant means that the right derives from ethic or value. So, Rawls distinguishes between “moral constructivism” and “political constructivism”, “rational autonomy” and “political autonomy”, and “moral value” and “political value”. Those differences unfold that Rawls has a starting point from Kantian interpretation of justice as fairness, also criticizes Kant’s indeterminate between right and ethic, and advocates his “political liberalism.”
