Abstract

The article is an analysis for Rawls' conception of rationality in the heritage from Kant, with a focus on the differences between the categorical imperative and the original position - perhaps the philosophers' two most famous constructions - and corresponding concepts with a view to how they conceive of the rational actor. It is argued that Rawls' position is suprisingly inconsistent with Kant's moral philosphy, and even though this becomes clearer and more recognized as Rawls' philosophy develops, this has always been the case. Instead, it is argued that Rawls' project is closer to Kant's political philosophy. Kant's political philosophy is, however, not present in Rawls' own works as an inspiration, and it is not as a political thinker that Rawls claims Kantian inspiration. In this light, Rawls is not the deontologist which he is known for being.