Justice in the Philosophical Balance: A Comparative Analysis of Kant’s and Rawls’ Theories in the Philosophy of Law

This theoretical study presents the Justice Alignment Framework (JAF), an innovative model for comparing Immanuel Kant’s deontological perspective on justice, anchored in the Categorical Imperative, with John Rawls’ contractarian approach to justice as fairness, grounded in the Original Position and veil of ignorance, within the realm of legal philosophy. Utilizing qualitative methodologies, such as comparative textual analysis and thematic coding of primary sources (e.g., Kant’s Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals and Rawls’ A Theory of Justice) alongside secondary literature, this research explores the normative underpinnings of legal justice. The JAF elucidates critical distinctions—Kant’s focus on universal moral principles versus Rawls’ emphasis on procedural equity—while uncovering synergies through their mutual reliance on rational agency, articulated via a conceptual matrix and a composite justice standard. These insights advance legal philosophy by providing a structured mechanism for assessing legal legitimacy, distributive fairness, and human rights, integrating deontological and contractarian viewpoints. The framework’s value lies in its capacity to shape discussions on global justice, legal education, and equitable policy formulation, fostering interdisciplinary engagement across moral and political philosophy.

کلیدواژه ها:

Justice ، Kant ، Rawls ، Legal Philosophy ، Rational Agency