羅爾斯對於康德在《道德形上學基礎》中有關「道德法則」的理論提出了一套系統化的詮釋。羅爾斯認為，我們可以根據康德所謂的「普遍法則表述」來建構一套「定言令式程序」而康構就是藉著這個程序來呈現「道德法則」。本文試圖採取批判的角度來陳述並檢討羅爾斯對於定言令式程序的詮釋。在勾勒出此一詮釋的模概之後，本文將特別針對羅爾斯認為該程序涉及「立法意圖」的主張，提出幾項批評。羅爾斯探取了一種傳統的詮釋角度，認為康德有關「道德法則」 的學說是否成立，乃繫乎「普遍法則表述」是否足以提供一套用以建立管制「社會世界」之「實踐法則」的立法程序而定。本文針對此一詮釋觀點進行一連串批評，這些批評的最後結論是：這樣的立法程序其實已經援用「普遍法則表述」之外的其他表述，特別是「目的王國表述」；而我們若是和羅爾斯一樣，認為定言令式程序僅只建立在「普遍法則表述」之上，並且堅持此一程序已經涉及「立法意圖」那麼康德將處於原本可以避免的困境中。本文想要透過此一結論來凸顯康德有關定言令式三個表述的說法，那就是:這三個表述乃以一種「循序漸進」的系統化方式來呈現「道億法則」。假使我們足夠重視此 一說法，就不會試圖和羅爾斯一樣，僅只透過一個表述來理解康德所謂的「道德法則」。

John Rawls puts forward a systematic interpretation of Kant’s doctrine expounded in the Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals about the moral law. According to Rawls, a “Categorical Imperative” (or CI-) procedure can be constructed on the basis of the Formula of the Universal Law (or FUL), and it is such a procedure that Kant appeals to in an effort to represent the moral law. The chief aim of this paper is to offer a critical exposition of the CI-procedure as interpreted by Rawls. After sketching major elements of Rawls's account, 1 will try to advance some criticisms that center around what he calls “legislative intention” involved in the CI-procedure. Rawls has adopted a traditional line of interpreting Kant which takes his doctrine expounded in the Groundwork about the moral law to stand or fall with whether or not the FUL can be used to generate a set of practical principles that are to regulate the social world. 1 will take issue with this traditional approach by arguing that if the CI-procedure is to be taken as involving “legislative intention,” it will have to appeal to features derived from formulas other than the FUL (especially from the Formula of the Kingdom of Ends), and that if,的 insisted by Rawls, the CI-procedure is to be a legislative procedure resting solely on the FUL, then Kant will be faced with theoretical difficulties which are avoidable if the procedure is interpreted differently. The present paper a attempts to draw due attention to Kant's own account of the three formulas of the Categorical Imperative as representing the moral law.