Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate how possible political consensus is given a fact of pluralism of comprehensive doctrines, good and values. Firstly I indicate that Rawlsian political conception of justice is not constructed from the historical or religious background or the inherent logic but that the conception is transcendental. Secondly I maintain that the political conception of justice is derived not from the comprehensive doctrines or moral values but from a moral Kantian conception of free and equal citizens or persons. Thirdly I make it clear that the political conception of justice based on tha moral Kantian conception does not destroy pluralism of comprehensive values but makes the reasonable overlapping consensus possible, while unreasonable values or doctrines independently of the overlapping consensus enjoy the liberties.
