在面對多元論或後形上學的情況下，規範的普遍有效性如何可能，是一個重要且困難的問題。而當代的實踐哲學的研究裡，康德的道德哲學的研究具有很重要的角色。因為它具有義務論、認知主義、形式主義和普遍主義的特色，而能夠對這提供不少的理論資源和基礎，來回應這個挑戰。 這篇論文，主要集中在討論羅爾斯和哈伯瑪斯對康德定言令式所提出的程序性詮釋。就羅爾斯的觀點而言，原初位置的設計是對於定言令式的程序性的表現。作為合理而理性的且自由和平等的人是建構程序的基礎。 另一方面，哈伯瑪斯則主張對於語用學的預設條件的分析和重構，可以提供規範的基礎。而對話倫理學的構想，則是提出道德論證的程序來取代康德的定言令式。最後，將比較他們兩個對於定言令式程序性解釋的差異。 In the face of pluralism or post-metaphysics, how universal valid of norm is possible. It is a very important and difficult problem. In contemporary, the study of Kantian moral philosophy plays a very important role in the search of practical philosophy. Because, it is deontological, cognitivist, formalist, and universalist. It can supply a lot of theoretical resource and basis to response the challenge. This thesis I focus on the discussion between Rawls and Habermas on procedural interpretation of Kant’s Categorical Imperative. Rawls’ description of the original position is a procedural representation of the categorical imperative. The conception of free and equal person as reasonable and rational is the basis of set up procedurce. The other hand, Habermas claims that an analytic and reconstruction of the pragmatic presuppositions can provide a normative foundation. The idea of discourse ethics replaces the Kantian categorical imperative by a procedure of moral argument. At last, I compared their difference about procedural explains of categorical imperative .
