No, Kant specifically says that we don't have to consider consequences. His categorical imperative isn't about consequences. It's concerns whether actions, when

No, Kant specifically says that we don't have to consider consequences. His categorical imperative isn't about consequences. It's concerns whether actions, when univerisalized, contradict themselves. In reality, actions aren't universalized, so it's not about considering actual consequences. It's often said that Rawls is a restatement of Kant for modern liberals, though there's plenty of dissent over that claim. Besides, Rawls restricted himself to political philosophy whereas Kant is talking about knowledge and morality (and also politics).