I think Kant's idea is important in its own right, but very different from what Rawls is talking about. Kant is addressing the need for a moral philosophy to b

I think Kant's idea is important in its own right, but very different from what Rawls is talking about. Kant is addressing the need for a moral philosophy to be coherent, in that you have to play out the consequences of what it would lead to. However, you are not asked to put yourself in anyone else's shoes; if you were a rich and powerful person, you might want to act in deference to rich and powerful people, and think it would be great for everyone to act that way universally. Rawls is asking you to create a rule book the you would be willing to follow no matter who you were in society. If you are rich, you are supposed to imagine if you would still support the rules if you were poor. So from our previous example, would you want everyone to defer to rich and powerful people if you were poor? The important aspect of The Original Position is that you are supposed to come up with a system where you wouldn't be against it no matter who you were in society.