Final answer:
The assertion that John Rawls acknowledged CEOs as deserving to make more money than their employees is false. Rawls' Difference Principle supports rewarding socially useful roles if it benefits society as a whole, especially the least advantaged.
Step-by-step explanation:
The statement regarding John Rawls' views on CEOs earning more than their employees is false. Rawls does not advocate the equal distribution of resources or their blind redistribution to the disadvantaged. Instead, he introduced the Difference Principle, which supports differentially rewarding socially useful roles, only if it also benefits the least well off in society. Rawls' idea behind a 'just' distribution is to arrange a system that rewards all socially useful activities and discourages the opposite, improving the situation of those who contribute little or nothing. Hence, the context of Rawls' principle suggests that CEOs might deserve higher compensation only if such differences in earnings also benefit those who are least advantaged, and this arrangement is agreed upon without knowing one's place in society (behind a 'veil of ignorance').
Furthermore, the provided information about the increase in wealth disparity, with CEOs earning significantly more than the average worker, does not necessarily align with Rawls' principles. It highlights existing social and economic inequalities, which according to Rawls, should be addressed by ensuring that such disparities ultimately help the poorest members of society. That said, the data does not suggest that Rawls acknowledged any particular group, including CEOs, as inherently deserving greater wealth apart from this principle.