Rawls Vs Kant

In the “Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysics of Morals,” Kant presents his interpretation of autonomy and how it relates to moral responsibility. Autonomy in its most general form is understood to be self-government, self-directing freedom, or moral independence. Kant strongly supports the idea of autonomy and providing yourself with your own law. In “A Theory of Justice,” Rawls takes the idea of autonomy and applies it to his view on justice in the world. After reading both accounts, I have found that Kant’s categorical imperative and Rawls state of original position very much mirror each other in that both conditions promote people to freely choose their guiding principles. Both Kant and Rawls believe that autonomous humans would live

In his opinion, good will is the one thing that is always intrinsically and unconditionally good, even if its efforts fail to bring about positive results. The reason Kant feels this way about good will is because he only wants us to be morally responsible for the things we have control over. He focuses on our intention of an action, not on the consequences. Our will is something related to our own choosing and completely under our control. This is the first place that autonomy can be found in Kant. He believes that freedom is at the heart of good will because we have total power over what our intentions are. This freedom of good will is possible because of reason and rationality. Kant emphasizes the fact that reason serves a purpose higher than happiness. Reason’s main function is to create a will that is good in itself, not good for a specific purpose like happiness. Our good will is the determination to do what reason requires is right no matter

According to Rawls, justice is what society agrees is just. Justice is how we relate with others and does not make sense for a single person. Rawl’s social contract theory is based on the justice that people choose together. His main idea of a theory of justice considers what kind of society people would choose if they did not know what place that would be in within this society. Rawls refers to this state as the original position. In this state, people are behind the veil of ignorance. They cannot see details about themselves or their qualities. This will prevent people from making decisions based on natural advantages. This original position is an unbiased vantage point from which fair agreements can be made. Rawls claims that ignorance to the details about oneself will lead to principles that are fair to all. He believes that behind the veil of ignorance, anyone would pick a society which benefits all, especially those least