¹Hamilton College

^*This essay grew out of seminars on Kant and Rawls at Johns Hopkins University with William E. Connolly, Richard E. Flathman, Eckart Förster, and J. B. Schneewind. I also thank Jane Bennett, Harry Gould, George Klosko, Patrick Peel, Sophie Rosenfeld, Andrew Ross, John Tambornino, Lars Tønder, Stephen K. White, the anonymous reviewers at Polity, and audiences at the Johns Hopkins University Graduate Student Colloquium, the University of Virginia Political Theory Colloquium, the New York State Political Science Association Conference, and the Western Political Science Association Conference.

Abstract

John Rawls had a life-long interest in Kant. To provide a new perspective on Rawls's political thinking, to illuminate Kant's legacy for political theory, and to contribute to current debates about the Enlightenment, I track how Rawls interprets and transforms Kant's legacy. In this essay, I show how Rawls reconceptualizes four key Kantian activities: the identification of the problem, the engagement with common sense, the construction of principles, and the authentication of principles. I defend Rawls from the charge—made by Allan Bloom, Michael Sandel, and Allen Wood, among others—that Rawls fundamentally misunderstands or misuses Kant. The basis of my defense is that Rawls considers a critical intellectual sensibility (or ethos), rather than a specific doctrine (e.g., the categorical imperative), as the most valuable component of Kant's legacy.